Archive for October, 2007

bigots vs. white nationalists

October 30, 2007

Little Green Footballs is trashing the anti-Islamic, pro-Western Vlaams Belang for supporting a “Flemish Flanders” and a “white Europe”. It says that anti-Islamic people should distance themselves from this party, i.e. let the only anti-Islamic party in Belgium die while we sit around and pretend to loathe jihad. The Vlaams Belang knows that European elites want to replace Europeans, who are white, with other people, who are not white. To oppose that replacement is to be simply white-nationalist, not “racist”, fascist, communist, Nazi, or neo-Nazi, though many white nationalists blame Jews for things they have not done.

People who insist on the replacement of white populations are bigots who cannot hide their hatred of the white race, and who will sell it out to a caliphate in a jiffy.

More from Little Green Footballs on the Vlaams Belang, and against the only significant anti-Islamic party in Sweden, the Sweden Democrats. (The Sweden Democrats piece relies on the notoriously unreliable and Leftist Wikipedia.)

The British National Party may be an Arab agent-provocateur party, thus dangerous. This goes, however, unmentioned, in the statements against it by Little Green Footballs, which finds it only “racist”.



October 28, 2007

From Little Green Footballs:

In the boneheaded move of the year, conservative student group Young Americans for Freedom invited British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin, a flat-out racist and Holocaust denier, to speak about the dangers of Islam at Michigan State University: Protesters shout down anti-Islam speaker at MSU.
It’s not clear from the article whether this was part of Islamofascism Awareness Week or not, but if it was, the Young Americans for Freedom have just handed the enemy a huge gift on a platter, tied up with a lovely white supremacist bow.


UPDATE at 10/27/07 5:47:36 pm:
LGF readers have been digging, and so have I, and I was being naive in thinking the YAF at Michigan State would renounce Nick Griffin and the BNP. They know exactly what he believes, and what the BNP stands for, and invited him for that reason.
And surprise! They’re also
big supporters of the only man who can save America, Ron Paul.
UPDATE at 10/27/07 6:20:32 pm:
UPDATE at 10/27/07 7:56:18 pm:
Did you know that LGF is a “
pro-Muslim, left-wing blog?”

Meanwhile, over at Chronicles Magazine, Srdja Trifkovic, author of some fine articles, has just outed himself with a piece entitled Eurasia Strikes Back: No War with Iran Likely. An excerpt from the neo-Soviet Eurasianist agit-prop follows:

This is payback time for Mr. Putin. His displeasure over U.S. missile defense installations along Russia’s western borders and over the stated intention of Washington to recognize Kosovo come what may, was on symbolic display when he kept the US secretaries of state and defense waiting for over 40 minutes when they visited him in Moscow earlier this month. Now he has helped produced something tangible: before leaving Tehran he commented that the use of force in the Caspian region had been rendered unthinkable: “We must not submit to other states in case of aggression or some other kind of military action directed against one of the Caspian countries. We regard that authority in Caspian only belongs to littoral states. It is also connected with subsoil resources.”

For months prior to the summit, Iran had conducted a broad diplomatic counter-offensive. Its leaders had met with Central Asian, Caucasian, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and North African leaders in a series of talks on security and energy. It is developing a “counter-pipeline” to the
increasingly vulnerable Ceyhan-Baku pipeline. The new link should connect the Caspian Basin to the Gulf of Oman. In addition, one of the fruits of the Caspian summit is the agreement to build the Turkmenistan-Kazakhstan-Iran railway line that would link Central Asia with Russia in the north the Persian Gulf in the south. According to analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a wide-ranging Eurasian-based strategy is taking shape: “In Central Asia, Russia, Iran and China have essentially secured their own energy routes for both gas and oil. This is one of the reasons all three powers in a united stance warned the U.S. at the SCO’s [Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s] Bishkek Summit, in Kyrgyzstan, to stay out of Central Asia.”


In the immediate aftermath of 9-11 Putin was the first foreign leader to contact Bush, promising that Russia would do “whatever is necessary” to help the U.S. His influence with the former Soviet republics in Central Asia was decisive in their decision to allow U.S. forces to use their bases. Mr. Bush subsequently attempted to make that presence permanent, however, in pursuit of the neoconservative policy of encircling, reducing, and ultimately eliminating Russia as a great power. In 2002 the United States unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty and announced a new major expansion of NATO. In 2003 and 2004 came the U.S.-supported and financed “color-coded revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine, the geopolitical equivalent of Putin engineering anti-American regime changes in Mexico and Canada. Elements of forward missile defense are now in Poland and the Czech Republic. All U.S. plans for the Caspian gas and oil still entail transit routes that studiously avoid Russia.


If Mr. Bush had wanted to preempt the rise of China as a rival and potential enemy, he should have acted boldly to halt further American investment in the Chinese economy, to reverse massive outsourcing, and to erect effective trade barriers against the continuing deluge of Chinese-made consumer products in American stores. He had done none of those things. In facilitating the growth of China’s economic base he has acted as an appeaser of U.S. corporate interests to the detriment of a viable security policy and world affairs strategy.

If Mr. Bush was not willing to act vigorously to halt the transfer of American wealth and American industrial potential to Shanghai and Guandong, he should have accepted the rise of China as a first-class power with the best possible grace and on the grounds that no fundamental sources of conflict between America and China exist. Such a relationship could have been skillfully managed—with more reciprocity in the field of trade and exchange rates—but it was not thus managed. Its foundation was lacking: the acceptance that Taiwan is part of China, that it will be eventually reintegrated, and that it is in the American interest to facilitate peaceful reunification of the island with the Mainland, perhaps using the Hong Kong formula.

After seven years of Mr. Bush’s contraditory course, China’s growing wealth and power coupled with mistrust of America have produced interesting results in the form of Peking’s strategic partnership with Russia. Directly resulting from Bush’s policies, the Shaghai process may soon reshape the Asian architecture by turning China into a distribution hub for oil and gas exports to South Korea and Japan, two of the largest energy importers in the world—which in turn may lead to their strategic realignment.

The Bush Administration has attempted to counter the growing SCO influence in Central Asia and the Far East by courting another Asian giant, India, as a future counterbalance to China’s power. The final objective—the emergence of a “Quadrilateral of Democracies,” a political grouping consisting of the United States, Japan, Australia, and India—is yet another Bush pipedream, however. India is weary of an alignment with America that remains Pakistan’s key backer, and aware that Washington’s objective is to use New Delhi as a dispensable auxilliary. The Indians are developing close cooperation with the SCO instead. The policy of “superalignment”—an even-handed cultivation of everyone who counts—is paying dividends without tying India to a distant and unpredictable America.


It is to be hoped that the emerging new global balance of power will reflect internationally what the system of checks and balances does at home. Its re-establishment will render ludicrous the hubristic ravings of Benevolent Global Hegemonists. It will also help re-legitimize the notion of America as a nation among other nations and a state among other states, with definable and limited national interests as the foundation of its diplomacy. Contrary to what Mr. Bush and his dwindling band of apologists may claim, this is neither defeatism nor isolationism; it is sanity.

Chronicles Magazine hosted — on the same day as Mr. Trifkovic’s article — an article on Russian foreign policy by Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, in which Lavrov lied that Russia has abandoned ideology. In its introduction, Chronicles accuses America of “Russophobia” (a justifiable phobia if ever there has been one).

That same day, Chronicles hosted an article by Pat Buchanan in which he blamed the “new” Cold War on America, and in which he attacked the truly conservative Washington Times.

The paleoconservatives are deeply anti-American and unpatriotic — not suprising, considering that fascists and communists are similar. Among the paleocons and their virtually indistinguishable allies the paleolibertarians are relatively prominent neo-fascists. Fascism is a form of socialism. Hitler’s National Socialism was based on Mussolini’s fascism. Lenin was a financial supporter of the Kappists — the direct organizational ancestors of the Nazis — in his schemes to undermine the Treaty of Versailles. Paleos’ claims of patriotism are as credible as Cindy Sheehan’s or Nancy Pelosi’s.

The “Old Right” is of a piece with the Far Left in its grievances :

Columnist Sam Francis has recently lashed out at William F. Buckley Jr. in a futile attempt to save “paleo-conservatism” from achieving the reputation it deserves. Upset that the Old Right is increasingly lumped in with the New Left and the Islamist movement, Francis claimed that no responsible conservative could make that connection. He could not be more wrong.


But David Frum got it right: Sam Francis and his paleo-con colleagues such as Lew Rockwell and Pat Buchanan regularly recycle the anti-American rhetoric of the Euro-Left, International ANSWER, the Lyndon LaRouche movement, Michael Moore, and The Nation’s editorial board. What’s more, these “unpatriotic conservatives” aren‘t particularly conservative – in a post 9/11 sense – at all. If Sam Francis needs proof, I’m glad to supply it.

Or rather, the Old Right itself is. Take libertarian Lew Rockwell, for example. The rhetoric Rockwell and leftist Michael Moore is strikingly similar. Rockwell has showered praise upon Michael Moore. Lew lauded Fahrenheit 9/11 as a “must-see,” an “exciting, searing movie” entirely consistent with libertarianism. Moore’s website compared Iraqi insurgents to the “Minutemen” and other freedom fighters; Rockwell blogged that Independence Day was a celebration of the “overthrow” of an unjust government, implying that the regime in Washington merited similar drastic measures. Both Rockwell and Moore fiercely oppose nearly every action taken by President Bush. Lew and his friends on the Old Right exalt Moore, because the Fabricator from Flint provides an indispensable service for the paleocons, providing them with “mainstream” cover.

Lew Rockwell admitted, in tones strikingly reminiscent of the contemporary Left, “I have this in common with NPR, Michael Moore, [and] the Black Caucus: a burning desire to see George Bush’s fingers pried loose from the levers of power.” – which, inexplicably, draws huge ratings – hasn’t exactly brimmed with CBC-friendly material over the years. Rockwell’s site and the related Mises Review (both projects of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute of Auburn, Alabama) have written articles addressing concerns ranging from neo-Confederatism to berating “King“ Lincoln. Criticism of Lincoln is a staple of Francis’ rhetoric, as well.

Moore is not the only left-winger to receive a push from Rockwell. and The American Conservative regularly published articles by LaRouchie asset Karen Kwiatkowski, before pitching her work to the folks at Salon.Com and MoveOn.Org.


The paleo-cons and the far-Left share the same heroes and villains – so-called “radical Zionists” like Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Michael Moore and Justin Raimondo of consider the soft-spoken Connecticut Senator a “Bushie pretending to be a Democrat” and a “Loserman” playing Stepin Fetchit for the neocons. And of course, this is another view they share with Lyndon LaRouche.

Writing in the June 25 Executive Intelligence Review, a LaRouche house organ, “Michele Steinberg” reheases charges familiar to fans of Raimondo, Michael Moore, and so many others, that Lieberman is part of “Cheney’s protection racket” by strenuously opposing Islamic terrorism. Like Noam Chomsky, LaRouche is big in Turkey, Indonesia, and other hotbeds of Islamicist political organization. Something tells me that’s not coincidence.

Alliances between Lew Rockwell and Michael Moore, Karen Kwiatkowski and the LaRouchies, and Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader state the obvious. The isolationist Right, the Nader/Moore Left, the LaRouche cult and the Islamofascists share an agenda. In their common denunciation of “American hegemony,” all these parties seek to weaken Washington’s position in the world, to shred the capacity of American business to operate in the global marketplace, and to deny Americans the benefits we have historically enjoyed […] Who benefits? America’s enemies and ill-wishers. That makes this unlikely Right-Left coalition their last, best hope.

Macaques, Maoists commit horrific murders in India

October 27, 2007

From the Associated Press:

NEW DELHI – Wild monkeys attacked a senior government official who then fell from a balcony at his home and died Sunday, media reported.New Delhi Deputy Mayor S.S. Bajwa was rushed to a hospital after the attack by a gang of Rhesus macaques, but succumbed to head injuries sustained in his fall, the Press Trust of India news agency and The Times of India reported.

Many government buildings, temples and residential neighborhoods in New Delhi are overrun by Rhesus macaques, which scare passers-by and occasionally bite or snatch food from unsuspecting visitors.

Meanwhile, more monkey business was taking place:

Maoists kill 17 in eastern IndiaSaturday, October 27, 2007 at 17:18 EDTNEW DELHI — At least 17 people were killed in a suspected Maoist attack in the Giridh district of eastern India’s Jharkhand state early Saturday morning, according to reports. Among the dead was the son of a former chief minister Babulal Marandi.

[…] around 30 people allegedly Maoists attacked Chilkari village of Giridh district […]

If it is true that 30 people were responsible for attacking a village, and the result was 17 casualties, these Maoists are little more adept than their macaque compatriots. Meanwhile, in fellow BRIC-aligned country South Africa (via National Geographic):

Conflicts between baboons and humans in the suburbs of prosperous CapeTown have gotten so bad that monitoring teams have been deployed to keepthe animals away (South Africa map).

The large monkeys invade people’s homes in the coastal Table Mountain region, sometimes confronting people who try to scare the baboons off.

Some residents have retaliated by shooting and poisoning baboons and by running them over on local roads.

The situation has also caused rifts within communities. In a suburb ironically named Welcome Glen, rival societies have formed, with some trying to protect the baboons and others wanting them removed or killed.

“We sometimes get into standoffs [with neighbors],” said Rose Ashley, a member of the Welcome Glen Environment Group, which is pro-baboon.

“We want the baboons to stay, and we see it as our task to protect them from people who want to harm them.

“(Related: “Ten Thousand Foxes Roam London” [May 15, 2006].)

Breaking and EnteringJoan Laing is co-chair of the rival Welcome Glen Baboon-Free Neighbourhood Action Group. She says the animals are a menace.

“They break windows to get into houses,” Laing said. “They even know how to open doors. And once inside, they make a mess. They empty the fridge, ruin furniture, and defecate all over.”And they’re not afraid of people, she says.”I have had them in my house several times, even while I was there. They simply brushed past me. I had to get out of the way,” Laing said. “Even my husband got threatened by a baboon.”

She insists that monitoring teams trying to keep the baboons at bay are not effective.

“These animals are quick. They can cross walls and roofs at speed. For two or three people to try to keep them away is impossible,” she said.

“They move in a troop of about 30, and they are so wide apart that it is impossible to stop them slipping into built-up areas.”

Laing says the baboons have been corrupted by years of close contact with humans.

“They must be kept out of our neighborhood. How is for the authorities to decide. All I can say, the monitoring system isn’t working.”

This brings us, at long last, to The People’s Cube:

SOUTH AFRICA – For generations, members of the impoverished baboon community in the Cape peninsula have suffered from inequality, forced to live in deplorable conditions on the margins of simian society with no access to education, subsidized housing, and universal healthcare – but this paradigm is about to shift. The baboons – whom scientists describe as the most economically oppressed minority among the primates – are finally fighting back, forcing homo sapiens to rethink their place in the diverse biosphere they had exploited for too long without giving back.

Scientists are unsure about the cause of the baboons’ sudden compulsion to organize and represent. Could it be that altruistic primate researchers have raised the apes’ awareness by distributing Marxist literature – or, are the apes naturally evolving to the level of class consciousness? Regardless of the cause, the most radicalized of them are finally fighting economic injustice by redistributing and disposing of unfairly gained surplus “human” wealth.

Evolutionary experts can’t hide their excitement. Researchers at Berkeley and other Ivy League schools were quick to point out that the so-called “crimes” are merely the result of social inequities, which have traumatized generations of the poorest baboons and led to the formation of a vibrant counterculture bent on direct action. No longer willing to sit idly by as the wealth continues to be unfairly distributed, the baboons are, in the words of one animal rights’ activist, “taking it to the man; I mean, all the higher primates – especially the homo sapiens!” […]

Ralph Peters, U.S.-military intelligence expert, on the U.S. military’s satellite-related vulnerability

October 27, 2007

From Ralph Peters, writing in the NY Post:


the United States sits in imagined security behind its own array of crucial strategic assets – our network of satellites.

Beat our satellites, beat us.

The Chinese know it. The Russians know it. And religious fanatics are bound to figure it out.

The Chinese are developing the capability to attack our satellite network; the Russians already have it – and terrorists would love to get it.

Over the years, a number of analysts, such as Lt.-Col. John A. Gentry (ret.) and Prof. William A. Wulf, have tried to raise the alarm about aspects of our “high-tech” Maginot Line – but the warnings never really stuck.

The ultimate vulnerability would come from a globe-spanning war with a power like China. Beijing has no intention of speeding out of its harbors to provide pop-up targets for the U.S. Navy. The Chinese are developing asymmetrical means to fight us on the broadest possible front – not least, striking our homeland in innovative ways.

Beijing has already tested an anti-satellite weapon, and it’s honing its cyber-attack skills to interfere with satellite transmissions and data processing.

What happens if we lose key links in our satellite system? We lose our strategic early-warning capability. We lose our ability to track enemy movements. We lose our ability to communicate, from the dirty-boots level to the National Command Authority.

The Global Positioning System goes away. Most of our hyperexpensive weapons systems can’t hit their targets – we lose the precision-guided bombs and cruise missiles without which the Air Force and Navy can no longer fight.


What do we need to do? Three things:

* The president and Congress must publish a far-more-explicit “Satellite Security Doctrine” that makes it clear that a surprise attack on the U.S. defense satellite network will be treated not only as an act of war but also as a war crime – and that our response will be swift, asymmetrical and disproportionate.

* We need to concentrate far more defense dollars on protecting our satellites, rather than on fighter aircraft with no one to fight or the Rube Goldberg missile-defense system that we’re determined to foist on the Poles and Czechs (and which relies on satellite communications).

* We need to declare a moratorium on the purchase of new military systems that depend on satellite links – until we can guarantee that those links will be preserved in wartime.

This issue is second in importance only to the nuclear threat at the height of the Cold War. Just as the French built their entire national defense around a single system, we’re constructing the most complex and expensive military in history in a manner that relies on one vulnerable asset – the satellite.

If you were America’s enemy, would you charge out to take on our tanks, warships and aircraft?

Or would you rather paralyze them all?

The U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Parameters, on Ralph Peters:
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of 19 books, as well as of hundreds of essays and articles, written both under his own name and as Owen Parry. He has experience, military or civilian, in 60 countries, and is a frequent contributor to Parameters.

Jihad Watch on Ralph Peters, to put it mildly, is quite deservingly not pretty. Peters claims that those who speak ill of Islam are worse than the jihadists.

the sack of Constantinople

October 25, 2007

An insightful satirical commentary from The People’s Cube last year on the similarity between the fate of Byzantium and the future awaiting Eurabia, and on the reaction of Muslims last year to the Pope’s quoting of Manuel II Paleologos:

In the view of some historians, the Pope’s recent apology to enraged Muslims over use of a quote written by Manuel II Palaeologus in 1391 bears a striking similarity with a similar apology delivered more than 600 years ago by Manuel II Palaeologus himself to offended Muslim armies after they ransacked his Christian country, converted its citizens to Islam, and beheaded or enslaved those who resisted the forced conversions. In a public speech made shortly after the quote first appeared in Muslim press, Manuel II apologized to the Islamic community that besieged his controversial “Byzantine entity,” the term used to describe the Greek-speaking Roman Empire of the Middle Ages, centered at its capital in Constantinople (now Istanbul). ~

“I hope,” said Manuel II, who was also known as a writer, poet and theologian, “that my apology will appease hearts and clarify the true meaning of my address, which was an invitation to a rational dialogue, with great mutual respect.”
Muslim clerics respond :
Muqtada Al-Sadr: “Three words: Reason my donkey!”
Performing Arts trainer and religious scholar: “To say that God cannot act irrationally is an insult to every irrational Muslim on earth and a blatant attempt to stifle unreasonable criticism.”
Mohammed Mahdi Akef, Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt: “It was very unreasonable of this infidel dog to expect a reasonable dialogue with a real Islamic scholar like me. Do you see the irony?”
Spokesperson for “United Mosques For Peace & Uniformity”: “I would like to find that ‘Islamic scholar’ with whom he was debating and rape his entire family while having his body eaten by dogs in the same room.”

There’s an accompanying YouTube video with more detail on the politics.

An excellent, recent article on the sack of Constantinople has been written by Srdja Trifkovic. An excerpt follows:

A Dark Day in History
by Srdja Trifkovic
On May 29, 1453, the city of
Constantinople fell to the Muslims. It was a dark day for Christendom and for all civilized humanity. His pleas ignored in the West, his supplies running out after six weeks’ siege, his soldiers outnumbered 15 to one, Emperor Constantine XI Dragas knew that his cause was hopeless. Like Prince Lazar at Kosovo 64 years earlier, he chose martyrdom.

On May 22 the moon, symbol of Constantinople since its founding, rose in dark eclipse, fulfilling an old prophecy on the city’s demise. Four days later the Bosphorus was shrouded by thick fog, a phenomenon unknown in eastern Mediterranean in late spring. When the final assault started on the 29th and the walls of the city were shattered, the Emperor discarded his purple cloak and led the last defenders to charge into the breach. The Turks were never able to identify his body; the last Roman Emperor was buried in a mass grave along with his soldiers.

When it was all over, bands of Turks went on a rampage. Pillaging and killing went on for three days. The blood ran down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. All the treasures of the Imperial Palace were promptly removed. Books and icons were burnt on the spot, once the jeweled covers and frames had been wrenched off. In the monastery of the Holy Savior, the invaders first destroyed the icon of the Mother of God, the Hodigitria, the holiest icon in all Byzantium, painted—so men said—by Saint Luke himself. When the Turks burst into the
Hagia Sophia, Sir Steven Runciman tells us in his Fall of Constantinople,
“The worshippers were trapped. A few of the ancient and infirm were killed on the spot; but most of them were tied or chained together. Many of the lovelier maidens and youths and many of the richer-clad nobles were almost torn to death as their captors quarreled over them. The priests went on chanting at the altar till they too were taken . . . The inhabitants were carried off along with their possessions. Anyone who collapsed from frailty was slaughtered, together with a number of infants who were held to be of no value . . . [The city] was now half in ruins, emptied and deserted and blackened as though by fire, and strangely silent. Wherever the soldiers had been there was desolation. Churches had been desecrated and stripped; houses were no longer habitable and shops and stores battered and bare.”


The tragedy of Christian communities under Turkish rule, as Gladstone rightly pointed out, was not “a question of Mohammedanism simply, but of Mohammedanism compounded with the peculiar character of a race.” The Turks, in his view, “were, upon the whole, from the black day when they first entered Europe, the one great anti-human specimen of humanity. Wherever they went, a broad line of blood marked the track behind them, and, as far as their dominion reached, civilization disappeared from view. They represented everywhere government by force as opposed to government by law.”

January 11, 2008 Update:

From The MEMRI Blog:

Hotel Construction On Byzantine Ruins In Istanbul

Mainsteam Turkish daily Milliyet described as ‘scandal’ the decision by the Committee on Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage to permit the construction of an additional building for Four Seasons Hotel on Byzantine ruins. Milliyet reported that scientists warned the authorities that the hotel construction project on the ruins of a Byzantine palace in Istanbul’s historic Sultanahmet district might cause Istanbul’s removal from the World Heritage List at the World Heritage Committee meeting of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to be held in Quebec, Canada in July.


Holy Land Trial

October 25, 2007

From the NEFA Foundation, a wonderful round-up of the Holy Land trial.

Related is its landmark report The Ikhwan in America. The Ikhwan, i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood, is the ancestral organization of al-Qaeda, CAIR, Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation, and others.

Finally, here to help us see past Alan Colmes’ boiler-plate Islamomarxist disinformation is Steven Emerson.

December 14th, 2007 Update:

From The Investigative Project on Terrorism:


While several jurors favored acquittals, just one out of the 12 did most of the knocking down. In fact, interviews with three HLF jurors – speaking publicly for the first time – suggest that juror William Neal’s stridency may have changed the trial’s outcome. Neal even claimed credit for steering jurors away from convictions in a recent radio interview. Until now, he has been the sole source for public perception of the deliberations and the government’s case.

The three jurors interviewed by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) showed the Neal-created perception as skewed. All three jurors say they disagree with his views of the evidence and the prosecution’s case. To them, it seems clear that Neal made up his mind going into the jury room and refused to consider any argument in favor of guilt. He preferred to read the court’s instructions rather than look at exhibits in evidence, they said. And his often snide manner intimidated and bullied those who disagreed with him.

The effect this had on the case is clear. When a juror walked out in frustration after just four days of deliberations, it followed a confrontation with Neal. When another juror briefly refused to cast a vote, it was after a confrontation with Neal. Williams broke down several times during the 19 days jurors spent locked in debate. Each incident followed what she felt was an attack by Neal.

In an interview with the IPT Dec. 3, Neal said he had no regrets. He disputed only some parts of the other jurors’ stories – he said he can’t remember telling Williams to go home if she was relying on the evidence in the jury room — but stopped short of saying it didn’t happen.
“We had so many conversations they tend to blend together,” he said.

The defendants were accused of illegally routing more than $12 million in support to the terrorist group Hamas through a series of charities, known as zakat committees. Prosecutors said those committees are controlled by Hamas. Defense attorneys argued HLF simply helped out Palestinians living in desperate poverty and provided support to widows and orphans regardless of whether they served Hamas.

Interestingly, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas effectively sided with prosecutors recently by claiming he was closing down 92 charities he said had been taken over by Hamas.

The HLF trial ran for six weeks. Then jurors deliberated 19 days. One defendant, Mohamed El-Mezain, was acquitted on all but one count against him – participating in a conspiracy to provide material support to Hamas. Jurors did not reach a unanimous verdict on that count and El-Mezain is facing a retrial for conspiracy.

Initially, it appeared others had been acquitted on multiple counts, but then two jurors stunned the courtroom: When U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish polled the jury, a standard practice, Williams and a juror named Gail said they did not agree with the verdicts. Curiously, Neal joined them, later saying he wanted deliberations to continue. He believed jurors gave up too soon.


“The jury room was a mess”

Williams describes a factionalized jury room, with those favoring guilty verdicts trying to explain their reasoning only to have those favoring acquittals shoot them down. Many times, jurors could not agree whether evidence was useful to them. Williams pointed to some that she thought was. When she did, she said Neal snapped back: “Go back to sleep, you’re not important.”

Another time, Williams and other jurors thought it would help to view photographs copied onto a videotape in evidence to see who had attended a pivotal meeting on scuttling Middle East peace hopes. Neal argued it was a waste of time and talked the group out of it.

That’s because videotapes sometimes covered hours, Neal said, and jurors had no way to pinpoint the 30-second segment they were shown during the trial.

A second juror corroborates Williams’ account. That juror spoke to the IPT only on the condition that the juror’s name is not used. The juror didn’t care if the defendants knew it. Neal, however, was someone the juror did not want to deal with again.

A third juror, Sylvester Holmes, also spoke publicly for the first time in an IPT interview. He and his two colleagues agreed that their arguments for conviction were dismissed out of hand. Sometimes they were told “that’s not evidence.” Other times, the argument didn’t meet Neal’s interpretation of the court’s instructions. Or, he simply repeated arguments offered by defense attorneys.

The three jurors interviewed were far from agreement on the verdicts. Holmes believed in guilt on all counts. Williams could not convict on charges involving some specific transactions but felt all five defendants were guilty of conspiracy to support Hamas. The unnamed juror who spoke with IPT was convinced only HLF executive director Shukri Abu Baker and Chairman Ghassan Elashi were guilty of conspiracy. But all three say that Neal bullied and intimidated those who disagreed with him, stifling true discussion of the case.

“He took control of that jury room,” Holmes said. “You just look at the case. The jury room was a mess.”

Among the examples cited:

Arguments for conviction met with immediate scorn and ridicule. At times, Neal raised his voice, cursed or otherwise belittled them for what they said. A handful of jurors called for an immediate break after he hollered “f*** your opinion” to a female juror.

Williams said she felt pressured by a majority of jurors into voting to acquit defendant Mufid Abdulqader. To them, Abdulqader was a bit player with no control over HLF money. Later, however, Williams said she saw receipts showing HLF paid Abdulqader’s travel expenses to attend a fundraiser. Already convinced there was a conspiracy to support Hamas, she decided that Abdulqader was a part of it. But the other jurors refused to let her change her vote on conspiracy counts, saying Abdulqader’s verdict form already had been signed and put away. Deliberations continued for at least another week after Williams’ request was rejected. That’s what prompted her to speak up when the judge polled the jury.

In a case featuring more than 80 videotape and audio recordings, jurors did not watch one video or listen to one tape during the 19 days of deliberations. Those who wanted to examine the exhibits were told it was a waste of time and printed transcripts were sufficient.

It is in this context that one juror named Gail refused to vote several days into deliberations. “People kept saying not guilty because they kept saying there was no evidence,” the unnamed juror interviewed by IPT remembered about Gail. “She’d seen evidence herself and she felt they weren’t taking the time to look at the evidence. They kept saying there’s no evidence and she just got tired of hearing that.”

Williams agreed that the juror named Gail just gave up at that moment. “She said ‘I’m just tired. I’m just ready for this to be over with.'”

Holmes got so frustrated that he walked out, forcing deliberations to start over when an alternate took his place. That deprived those favoring a guilty verdict of an ally. He wrote to the court saying he did not “feel that I can give the defendant’s (sic) justice. Due to the circumstance in this case, I ask to be dismiss (sic) for this case.”

Holmes, a supervisor at a recycling plant, said he thought all the defendants were guilty but saw no point in arguing further. “I felt they were wasting my time,” he said.

Neal’s Account of the Deliberations

Neal, a graphic artist, apparently felt the same way about others wasting his time. He was interviewed by Dallas radio and television stations within days of the trial and by the Dallas Morning News. Thus far, his assertions have provided the only detailed insider assessment about the prosecution case.

Neal made his disdain clear two days after the mistrial in an interview on Dallas radio station KRLD.

“A lot of the jurors couldn’t even say words that had four syllables,” Neal said on the Ernie and Jay show on KRLD 1080 AM. “They just picked the jury based on socio-economical reasons. A lot of these people are blue collar, you know, working UPS, working food, cafeteria cashier. You had people [from] secluded lifestyles. They had no idea of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They had no idea about worldly affairs. To get them and you show them bombs and show them kids – that’s not our lifestyle so we’ve got to vote them guilty because of that. That’s the whole reason.”

The Dallas Morning News noted Neal “also had difficulty calling Hamas a terrorist group. ‘Part of it does terrorist acts, but it’s a political movement. It’s an uprising.'”

He reinforced that assessment in the IPT interview, saying he read the Hamas charter twice during deliberations. “They haven’t always been a bombing kind of group,” he said.
Hamas’ first actions involved shootings and stabbings. Its preamble to the charter includes this:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

So, to Neal, what is Hamas?

“It is marked as a terrorist organization. My personal viewpoint, I didn’t know too much before. I see it as a political struggle. Our country was founded on a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party wasn’t a tea party, dude. It was a rebellion against the king’s wrath. They fought back against an oppressive government.”

He argues that prosecutors never proved that Palestinian charities, the zakat committees, were controlled by Hamas. HLF routed its money to the committees. Absent that proof of Hamas control, Neal reasons, the defendants can’t be convicted. Within hours of the mistrial, he told reporters the government’s case “was strung together with macaroni noodles.”

“There were so many gaps in the evidence, I could drive a truck through it,” he told the Morning News.

That, the three other jurors interviewed said, was not the case. Neal simply refused to consider it as valid evidence. Even at the end, a majority favored convicting Baker and Elashi, Williams and the unnamed juror reported.

The evidence

There wasn’t one single exhibit that swayed the jurors interviewed. Rather, each placed exhibits in the broader context of statements and activities by the defendants. Baker, they said, was shown to have lied repeatedly about his attitude toward Hamas. The defendants privately discussed Hamas activities, from a bombing that defendant Abdelrahman Odeh described as “a beautiful operation,” to the 1997 arrests in Brooklyn of three alleged Hamas members accused of plotting another bombing.

Williams was struck by transcripts of a secret gathering of Hamas members and supporters in Philadelphia in 1993. They met in the wake of the Oslo peace accord, which they feared threatened to marginalize Hamas politically and which eventually could lead to a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which they opposed.

At one point, Shukri Abu Baker tells the others “war is deception.” That, combined with other false statements, swayed Williams.

“That was pretty intense for me, that, why would he say that? I know he said it at the Philadelphia meeting. And if it’s a charity set up, then why is he saying that? And plus there was Hamas leaders there, and they showed tapes of Hamas leaders,” she said.

A January 1995 call from Abdelrahman Odeh to fellow defendant Mohamed El-Mezain entered into evidence at the trial stuck with the unnamed juror. Odeh wanted to alert El-Mezain about a Hamas bombing. El-Mezain hadn’t heard about it yet and could not understand the radio report Odeh played over the telephone.

“What is important is that they carried out an operation,” Odeh said. Eighteen people were dead and 60 others injured. Odeh called El-Mezain again a little more than a year later to report Yehya Ayyash, the infamous Hamas bomb-maker known as “the Engineer,” had been killed by the Israelis.

Then there was evidence introduced at trial concerning fundraising conference calls HLF organized in which speakers repeatedly praised Hamas. In January 1997, one such call featured Mohamed Siam, a prominent Hamas member, and Muslim Brotherhood leader Kamal al-Hilbawi. Hilbawi praised “the steadfast” and named Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmad Yassin, the Hamas bomb-maker Yehya Ayyash and Hamas founder Mousa Abu Marzook as those helping the Islamic world move “from weakness to strength and to the love of martyrdom.”

“A legitimate foundation wouldn’t do that,” the unnamed juror said. But those favoring acquittal argued that HLF officials were not the ones who made the comments even if they were the ones benefiting from the money raised.

“They’re the ones who brought these people in and who let them talk in raising this money,” the juror said.

The juror also was struck by a 1997 conversation admitted as evidence between Baker and
Elashi, in which they discussed the Brooklyn arrests of three men alleged to be plotting a Hamas-connected bombing in the United States. Baker insisted that the suspects had nothing to do with Hamas, whatever they had done; adding that Hamas leader Abel Aziz Al-Rantissi had already issued a denial.

Still, Baker expressed concern that the incident could be damaging:

Sh: I just wanted to tell you because it seems that whoever, the guy in New York, this dog, tried to tie it to parties…Don’t be surprised if the fabrication gets bigger than that. They would keep on publishing confessions that…er, which are nonsense. They cannot get us by law, they will try to get us by fabrication, man.

The unnamed juror found that incriminating, wondering why Baker and Elashi would be so concerned about Hamas being falsely blamed for a plot if Baker and Elashi had nothing to do with the organization.

Neal saw that call differently. To him, the call had no significance because between references to the Brooklyn arrests, Baker and Elashi spent several minutes discussing a van Elashi wanted to buy. That section may not have been read to jurors in court. But when he read it during deliberations, Neal accused prosecutors of trying to misrepresent defendants’ statements.

“…[T]hey left [that] out conveniently to show the other side of the fence,” he told WFAA television. “Take one sentence that says Hamas. Well did you know they were talking about a van in the two sentences before that? No because you just completely want to talk about Hamas.”

In his interviews, Neal expressed deep skepticism of virtually every aspect of the government’s case. He believed little, if anything, of what he heard from prosecution witnesses. Expert witness Matt Levitt wasn’t credible, in Neal’s view, because he had testified in a series of similar trials. Levitt has extensively studied Hamas’ infrastructure and tactics and authored the book, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad.

And Neal believed nothing he heard from an Israeli intelligence officer who testified under a pseudonym. “Avi” provided evidence Israel seized during raids of HLF offices in the West Bank and explained how some zakat committee officials were tied to Hamas.

“So you’ve got this guy who works for the Israeli government, who’s gonna name names. That’s his job. His job is to find Palestinians who are Hamas or troublemakers or whatever. I expect him to name names. He admitted in open court that he’s being paid to be here. So that’s completely biased. All the prosecution witnesses were all biased because they’ve been doing this for 13 years,” Neal said on the Ernie and Jay show.

In the IPT interview, he questioned why Hamas was designated a terrorist group.

“The Israeli government is one of our friends. It’s a close ally and a lot of our political actions go in favor of Israel. If they’d have been in favor of the Palestinians we wouldn’t be hearing about these things. There was probably a lot of pressure” on the United States to designate Hamas as a terrorist group and pass legislation outlawing transactions with it.

Defense arguments, in contrast, were embraced by Neal. He used them to rebut Williams when she put stock in a videotape exhibit that she said haunted her during the trial. It showed a skit in which defendant Mufid Abdulqader portrayed a Hamas member who kills an Israeli police officer. The skit was performed at a fundraiser for the Islamic Association for Palestine. The IAP, like HLF, was part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee,” which prosecutors say worked to benefit Hamas.

“I am Hamas, O dear ones,” Abdelqader said. “And I am Hamas, O dear ones. In midst of fire, they throw me. And I am Hamas, O dear ones. In midst of fire, they throw me. I swear to wipe out the name of the Zionist. And protect my land, Palestine. And you must get out.”

Neal dismissed the skit as meaningless. It was an exercise of free speech, he said, echoing defense attorneys. But to Williams, it showed knowledge of the ultimate objective.

“He’s doing a skit raising money for the committees but he’s doing it as a Hamas terrorist. If you’re raising money, I wouldn’t think you would be making Hamas look good. You would try to be helping the charities for the poor Palestinians that are poor and lost their loved ones or are under whatever circumstances whether they’re martyrs or innocent bystanders.”

When defendant Abdelrahman Odeh singled out the son of a slain Hamas bomb-maker for support, Neal told jurors who found that incriminating that they were wrong. The child shouldn’t suffer because of the father’s sins, he said, again repeating a defense argument.

Williams and the unnamed juror argued it wasn’t about the child; rather, the fact that Odeh made a specific request to support the son of Hamas martyr Yehya Ayyash was telling.

“I don’t know why Ayyash’s kid was so important,” Williams said. “Odeh made it a point of saying ‘This is who I’m going to support.’ He didn’t hide the fact that he supported Ayyash. And it was obvious Ayyash’s son was the son of the major bomb maker of the Hamas.”

To Neal, the specific nature of Odeh’s action had no deeper significance. “It shows he’s supporting an orphaned kid who happens to be the kid of a Hamas bomb maker. It’s their religion to give to charity,” he said. He seemed to view each exhibit in isolation, refusing to connect it with other evidence that might show a pattern of behavior.

After the mistrial, Neal told WFAA television the other jurors lacked sophistication and accused prosecutors of manipulating their credulity.

“If you’re ignorant or you have no idea about any culture or you have no idea about a certain way of life or you don’t know that Hamas was once a political – and it still is a political figure – you know, they still do political things. And if you’re going to sit there and show bomb belts, and you’re going to show what they’re doing to the, you know, in their homeland – why didn’t they show us what – I know it’s not important in the case but at the same token you could show what Israeli people are doing to Palestinian people,” Neal said.

In one interview, Neal indicated prosecutors may have falsely believed he would be sympathetic to them. His father works in the military, he said on the Ernie and Jay show.

“My answers [to the questionnaire] looked like I was a pro-American, you know, flag-waving American. I mean, I am, but they thought I was not going to be able to think for myself and just go on the facts that these were Muslims and these were, you know some of the defendants were not American citizens.”

Neal told the IPT he went into deliberations with no opinion and wanted to see where the evidence took him. The other jurors never knew how he was voting on secret ballots, he said. Neal told interviewers it was the other jurors who had their minds made up before deliberations started, that it was their refusal to budge that dragged out deliberations.

That’s just wrong, the anonymous juror said.

“If he believed not guilty across the board, if he wanted to talk about the case, that was fine. But he shouldn’t have said stuff that wasn’t true,” the juror said. Asked to clarify, the juror said, “He talks a lot about people not changing their minds. I changed my mind throughout the deliberations on several defendants. I guarantee you he never changed his mind throughout. He was at not guilty from the time he sat in there.”

Williams, Neal said, was often confused and disorganized. In his view, she “was there for the check,” he said on Ernie and Jay. “She lost her job during this case so she was there for vacation and checks. She was flim-flamming all over the place.”
Kristina Williams

In court, Williams says, she paid close attention. She filled three binders with notes from testimony and exhibits. Under the court’s direction, she wasn’t allowed to read from those notes during deliberations, but they did help her remember certain points and find exhibits from dozens of boxes stuffed into the jury room.

On Thursday, Oct. 18, jurors came to an agreement that further deliberations were pointless and they notified U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish. There were unanimous decisions on some counts, deadlocks on others.

Fish was out of town and the verdict forms, indicating acquittals for defendants Mohammed El-Mezain, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdelrahman Odeh, were sealed until Fish returned Monday morning. Then, as is standard practice, the judge polled the jury – asking each whether they agreed with the verdicts.

Williams stunned the courtroom and her fellow jurors by saying no. She had already written to the court that morning asking whether they would be polled. If not, “I would like to give my statement while the court reporter is there,” she wrote.

She said she had succumbed to pressure in voting to acquit Abdulqader on the conspiracy counts. Later, she recalled, she found evidence she felt proved his guilt on conspiracy.

“They [other jurors] said, ‘We’ve already voted on him. We can’t go back and change our vote,'” Williams said. On this point, Neal agrees with Williams’ account.

Fish initially sent jurors back to see if more deliberations were possible. Williams said several other jurors were angry with her. “The foreperson was very embarrassed that it came to this. And I come out and I told them, ‘I told you I found some evidence on Abdulqader but you guys didn’t want to hear it.’ I says ‘I told you I wanted to change my vote to guilty and you told me we couldn’t do it … I told you I didn’t like my vote when we voted.’ They told me, ‘Krissy just shut up and go back to sleep.'”

Williams denies ever sleeping during deliberations. There were times, she said, when she closed her eyes due to tension or fatigue, but she stayed awake. The unnamed juror said it did appear Williams dozed off a few times, but that came in “periods of silence” when jurors were waiting for someone to dig out an exhibit.

Other jurors disagreed with her on the case, Williams said. But they did so without attacking or belittling. For those jurors, Williams said, the evidence simply fell short. They were not sufficiently convinced that the zakat committees were part of Hamas.

Williams was convinced, pointing to a 1991 letter introduced at the trial that was addressed to defendant Shukri Abu Baker. It listed the committees and detailed which were “ours” and how many representatives worked there. Some jurors dismissed the letter due to its age, but Williams looked at it in conjunction with the testimony of “Avi” and FBI agent Robert Miranda. She felt their testimony further tied zakat committee members and HLF guest speakers to Hamas.

In some cases, Miranda was able to show the speakers’ telephone or fax numbers traced back to known Hamas offices. For example, at least seven speakers used by HLF to raise money had the same telephone number as Hamas spokesman Ibrahim Ghosheh. Miranda found the number on a 1995 letter Ghosheh had written to U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch protesting American detention of Hamas political leader Mousa Abu Marzook.

It seemed to Williams that, short of a check written from HLF directly to Hamas, jurors were not going to convict.

“These people were smarter than that to just come out and write the word Hamas on a check. I think they knew what they were doing,” she said. “They were just smarter than that to be that obvious that they were supporting Hamas. Some of the jurors, they wanted to see the word Hamas on a check. Sure, I would have loved to see Hamas on a check. It’s just realistic. I think these people were just that smart.”

The 1991 letter listing zakat committee connections was contradicted by other exhibits, Neal said. Oftentimes those documents were undated, making it impossible to determine when those whom HLF considered “ours” were present. Agent Miranda’s testimony was barely discussed, he said.


December 26th, 2007 Update:

In addition to the observations concerning Jews’ tendency toward fellow travelling with jihadists in the Comments below, more on this subject can be read in Jihadists (and the Jews who love them).

It is a sad fact that some Jews hate Christians so much that they will side with jihadists first, and that some Arab and Russian Orthodox Christians hate Western Christians so much that they praise and/or sympathize with jihad.

Saint Gregory Palamas would be horrified:

And those who held steadfast to the barbaric faith became enraged against me, and some molested me and others sought to pick up an argument; but, unable to prevail over me in any other respect, they mentioned my captivity as a proof of the ineffectiveness of our religion. For this infidel and god-hated and all-abominable nation boasts that they have overcome the Romans on account of piety. They ignore that this world is immersed in evil. . . . ‘

‘Since they have known Christ and have not glorified and worshipped him as Christ, God has delivered them unto a lascivious mind, passions and vices, so that they live shamefully and inhumanly and in a way hated by God . . . they live by their bows and swords, rejoicing in enslavement, murder, raiding, looting, wantonness, adultery, sodomy. And not only do they indulge in such practices, but (0 madness!) they think that God approves of them. This is my opinion concerning them, now that I know their ways more accurately.’

Thanks to this saint, we can see clearly that some 600 years ago, rampaging jihadists were kidnapping civilians, engaging in sodomy, and convinced that their military victories proved they had chosen the right religion (what about their military losses?).

But who needs the truth? We have the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) to explain jihadism and National Socialism:

Thus, firstly, when the Trinitarian Faith is lost, nations may become nationalist and racist, as we saw in the case of Nazi Germany. We can see this also with contemporary Islamic fanatics, for whom “New World Disorder” of terrorist jihad is merely a reaction to Western globalization.

Perhaps we shall incorrectly believe that the same Nazis who signed the Warsaw Pact with Stalin did not receive Soviet financing or ideological influence from White emigres, in case God is a jihadist ROCOR bishop who was crucified by globalist bankers with Masonic lodge memberships.

the neo-Soviet Union is the Eurasian Customs Union and Eurasian Economic Community

October 24, 2007

Eurasianism was developed in the 1920’s by Russian emigres as an alternative to communism. It was reformulated into the neo-Communist ideology of neo-Eurasianism by the Russian apparatchik, geopolitician, and ideologist Alexander Dugin.

Dugin has based his work largely on that of the anti-Western Eurasianist Lev Gumilyov (or “Gumilev”), who popularized Eurasianism in Russia; Gumilyov’s version of Eurasianism, i.e. the predecessor of neo-Eurasianism, has been popular since before perestroika with Russian elites from the General Staff of the Soviet Armed Forces (perhaps especially), from the KGB, from the CPSU Foreign Ministry, and from the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Now that the Soviet Union is gone, there is a Eurasian Customs Union, as well as a Eurasian Economic Community.

A crucial element of neo-Eurasianist ideology is the quest to destroy the West, complete with illustrations of mushroom clouds and exhortations to Americans to commit treason because, despite understandable patriotic misgivings, (so the Leninist disinformation goes) true patriotism in all places is support for Russia, since Russian hegemony will be better for all people (and, thus, anything else must supposedly be treason). Islam is regarded as friendly in this scheme — except when it interferes with Russian power.

Let us recall that the so-called Monroe Doctrine, which was formulated by John Quincy Adams, emerged because of Russia’s expansionist nature, and that — as Dugin urges and as Secretary of State John Quincy Adams and President James Monroe once feared it wouldRussia increasingly has control of Latin America (and, additionally, of our supposed ally India), and is likely to gain more.

In a remarkable piece of disinformation, writing in English in 2004, Dugin professed to wish to leave (nearly non-existent) American control of Latin America intact — per (he claimed) the Monroe Doctrine.

who Ron Paul is, and what just war is

October 22, 2007

From Little Green Footballs:

Why should American Muslims vote for Ron Paul? How will he help the Ummah?

How YOU can HELP Palestine and END American Sponsored Oppression
Assalaamu Alaikum Brothers and Sisters,
You can help by sharing and sending this note to all the Muslims you know as well as by registering as a Republican and voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries in your state. Here’s why: Muslims have an unique window of opportunity for the 2008 election. There is a candidate running as a Republican that would work to completely cut off the funding to Israel, remove ALL US troops from Arab lands, and repeal the Patriot Act. He’s a Republican with Libertarian views named Ron Paul.
Till now Muslims have not had an American Presidential candidate that really suited their best interests. This election is unique in that we have a man running as a Republican that speaks the truth. Much of the our foreign policy in the Middle East has been influenced heavily by AIPAC, the pro-Israeli lobby, to the detriment of Muslims in the Middle East. As American Muslims, we are blessed to live in the US where we have the freedom to let our policymakers know how we feel about foreign policy; we may not have the power of an influential lobby but we do have the right to vote and every single vote counts. We know the current policies in the Middle East are failing, not only making it less safe in the world but hurting and killing innocent Muslims, which our media callously calls collateral damage. It is our duty as Muslims to follow the truth regardless of how futile it may seem. Ron Paul is the only candidate that does not seem to be swayed by the influential lobbies that the other candidates are catering to.

GOP Congressman Ron Paul has made false claims concerning the nature of Christian just war, a doctrine whose main authors are Saint Augustin of Hippo and Saint Thomas Aquinas; the John Birch Society has supported those claims. Ron Paul and the John Birch Society both oppose military action against Iran, and they deny Iran is a security threat to America. They say America should try to make peace with Iran. They claim that many of the strongest supporters of the Iraq war consider America a Christian country that makes war on people these supporters consider to be “Muslim infidels”. Paul and the John Birch Society further assert that preemptive nuclear war against Iran would be contrary to Christian principles of just war, when in fact it would not be: Christian just war entails the forcible Christianization of the world and the destruction of all non-Christian gods . Ron Paul and the John Birch Society, in their misrepresentation of Christian just war, are in line with the latest in neo-Soviet and jihadist propaganda, as demonstrated below.

From the John Birch Society:

Anyone closely following the Republican presidential debates knows that there is a huge contrast between the position of nine of the 10 Republican candidates and that of Congressman Ron Paul on the subject of war. That contrast was strikingly illustrated in a YouTube video that was recently forwarded to me. Entitled “Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity,” the video depicts a nuclear attack while also showing clips of remarks by some of the Republican candidates including Ron Paul. For example, the YouTube video shows clips from the June 5 Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire, where candidates were asked if they would use tactical nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against Iran. Congressman Duncan Hunter said: “I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons.” Rudy Giuliani said: “You shouldn’t take any option off the table.” And Mitt Romney responded: “You don’t take options off the table.”Ron Paul was not asked that particular question. But later in the same debate, he got his opportunity to comment about preemptive nuclear war when he was asked: “What’s the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now?” He responded emphatically: “I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just-war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security.”The YouTube video also shows Ron Paul commenting on the floor of the House: “I remember something about ‘Blessed are the peacemakers.’ Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a Christian nation, yet use their religion to justify the war. They claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the Muslim infidels. I have been reading from a different Bible. Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of the just-war theory.”What is Christian just-war theory? Paul summarized: “War should be fought only in self defense”; “War should be undertaken only as a last resort”; “A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority”; “All military responses must be proportional to the threat”;• “There must be a reasonable chance of success; and”• “A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required.”Obviously, these criteria for a just war do not match what we have been doing in Iraq. Nor are they in harmony with the concept of a preemptive nuclear war against Iran. Yet the Republican presidential candidates who support the concept of preemptive nuclear war also claim to be Christians and men of faith. How can that be? Have they studied Christian just-war theory? Are they even familiar with it? Ron Paul made a very astute observation when he commented: “I have been reading from a different Bible.”

Saint Augustin of Hippo and Saint Thomas Aquinas are the fathers of “just-war theory”. Saint Augustin advocated the destruction, through just war, of all non-Christian religions:

Who, then, has effected the demolition of these systems but the God of Israel? For to this people was the announcement made by those divine voices which were addressed to Moses: “Hear, O Israel; the Lord your God is one God.”You shall not make unto you any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath.” And again, in order that this people might put an end to these things wherever it received power to do so, this commandment was also laid upon the nation: “You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them; you shall not do after their works, but you shall utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.” […] “This God of Israel, therefore, who has interdicted the worship of other gods, who has interdicted the making of idols, who has commanded their destruction, who by His prophet has predicted that the Gentiles from the ends of the earth would say, “Surely our fathers have worshipped mendacious idols, in which there is no profit;” this same God is He who, by the name of Christ and by the faith of Christians, has ordered, promised, and exhibited the overthrow of all these superstitions. In vain, therefore, do these unhappy men, knowing that they have been prohibited from blaspheming the name of Christ, even by their own gods, that is to say, by the demons who fear the name of Christ , seek to make it out, that this kind of doctrine is something strange to Him, in the power of which the Christians dispute against idols, and root out all those false religions , wherever they have the opportunity” (Harmony of the Gospels, Book 1).

Ron Paul’s claim that “supporters of the Iraq war” want to wage a war that doesn’t qualify as Christian just war against people they view as “Muslim infidels”, “declare we are a Christian nation”, and use “their [the supporters’] religion” as grounds for the war is wrong on at least two counts. Firstly, waging war against people who worship a non-Christian god and refuse the Christian one (and/or persecute Christian believers) IS Christian just war — especially if one annihilates the worshippers of the non-Christian god(s) and defends Christians in the process, as in a preemptive nuclear attack against Iran. Secondly, “infidel” is used by Muslims to refer to non-MuslimsChristians don’t often use it about Muslims anymore , if at all.

Ron Paul and the John Birch Society oppose action against Iran or Iranian proxies Hezbollah (which is murdering American soldiers in Iraq) and Hamas, despite Hezbollah’s and the democratically elected terrorist Hamas government’s declarations of jihad against America. The John Birch Society’s William Norman Grigg, who gave “Fahrenheit 9/11” a rave review , opposes military action against Iran or its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. He admits the latter is a “client” of Iran. Ron Paul and William Norman Grigg denounce the Iraq war as unnecessary and (in Grigg’s case) illegal, support the so-called “Palestinians”, lobby against America’s using military force to defend itself against Islamic/anti-Christian Iran, denounce Christians’ taking a stand against Muslims, and show no concern for the persecution by the Iranian government of Iranian Christians or for the Iranian-aligned Iraqi government’s at-least-tacit support of the genocide by Iraqi Muslims against Iraqi Christians . (Iraq is infested with Iranian Revolutionary Guards and with Hezbollah and similar Iranian proxies.)

Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) agrees concerning action against Iran, the Palestinian territories, Iraq, and Hamas and Hezbollah, as does Russian state news agency RIA Novosti. Hamas has arranged and is arranging military operations on United States soil. Hezbollah has active cells on U.S. soil in addition to its criminal activities here. None of this is mentioned by Ron Paul or by the John Birch Society (let alone by the CPUSA). Russia is solicitous of Hamas and Hezbollah, refusing to recognize them as terrorist organizations, supplied Hezbollah with weapons and with special forces during (supposedly) Hezbollah’s 2006 war against Israel, and allows Hezbollah to proselytize non-Muslim ethnic Russians (who blend in perfectly with the surrounding population) in Russia, including in Moscow and in St. Petersburg (i.e. in the Russian heartland). Ron Paul and the John Birch Society don’t seem to mind that Hezbollah used (Lebanese) Christians as human shields during that war, nor do they voice any concerns about Hezbollah’s terrorizing of Lebanon’s substantial Christian population or its assassinations of its Christian politicians.

Look at this 2004 piece by Ron Paul. His allegation that 9/11 could be an inside job matches that of the American Radical Left, with its history of links to the Soviet Union. His allegation that America is in danger of being turned into a police state after a “staged” terrorist attack ( i.e. an inside job), which would — according to this theory — be followed by a war with Iran, was independently run recently as a headline by Russian state news agency RIA Novosti, which is promoting the theory that America is provoking Iran into war; it commends Iran for not having swallowed the supposed bait. Russia is — unambiguouslyagainst an American strike on Iran. Vladimir Putin has warned America not to take military action against Iran, as he tries to obtain control of the Caspian sea’s energy resources.

The John Birch Society and Ron Paul warn of an impending American police state that they say would be due to a phony and illegal war on terrorism. (The John Birch Society already published a blog entitled “Our Totalitarian State”, which expressed sympathy for justly convicted 1993 World Trade Center al-Qaeda bombing accessory Mohammed Yousry, saying no better example can be found than his case of America’s totalitarianism.) So do the CPUSA, the International Committee of the Fourth International, and RIA Novosti. Vladimir Putin — former head of the KGB, current Russian president, China-Iran-Venezuela ally, and apparent anti-Western fanaticconcurs regarding the Iraq war , claiming America is a fascist state reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Meanwhile Putin is busy invading Georgia, trying to steal the North Pole, sending his army to fight abroad on the side of jihadists, thieving and extorting, routinely assassinating and torturing minor critics (one British victim’s assassin could be extradited, contrary to Russia’s claims — however distasteful the victim’s lobbying for Chechens and conversion to Islam may be), and threatening to nuke Europe while selling nuclear-weapons technology and other armaments to jihadists in the Middle East.

The Iraq war was not only legal; it would have been a Christian just war, except that America did not seek to propagate Christianity. Contrarily, it has allowed Iraq’s Christians to be persecuted more than before, and it has allowed Islam to flourish there. Russo-Iranian-backed terrorists have similarly been persecuting Christians in the Palestinian territories, where the situation is dreadful and getting worse, and Ron Paul does not mention this, following Party line and saying it’s the Jews’ fault, not the Saracens’ or the Russian mobsters’.

RIA Novosti and Ron Paul say America’s government likely will stage a terrorist attack and become totalitarian. Ron Paul accepted a radio-show host’s, Alex Jones’s, statement that Bush had “literally” “[made] himself dictator”, and Paul told Jones he agreed with Cindy Sheehan (who had appeared on a previous show) that America was in grave danger of a terrorist attack being “staged” by the federal government — as was the Gulf of Tonkin attack by Vietnamese Communists, Paul and Jones claimed, parroting a pro-Communist conspiracy theory that America framed the Communists for the attack — and blamed on Muslim terrorists to allow the creation of a totalitarian state and the dragging of America into war with Iran, as described here on Alex Jones’s website. Ron Paul has promoted this conspiracy theory numerous times, including on the floor of the House, and he has appeared numerous times on Alex Jones’s show.

The radio show host, Alex Jones, was featured in a re-run Reuters story on the English language al-Jazeera website concerning 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Lev Dzugayev, a member of the “Expert Council” of RIA Novosti, condemned the Gulf of Tonkin incident along with the Iraq war, and speculated that America could occupy Grenada as it begins to see enemies everywhere. Vladimir Putin is currently claiming that U.S. actions in Vietnam were worse than Stalin’s purges, claiming that Stalin’s purges were for the benefit of the Soviet Union. Ron Paul’s statements often sound like pages out of Vladimir Putin’s playbook. Putin, despite all evidence, denies Iran is developing nukes, and poses as the antidote to imaginary American unfairly anti-Islamic behavior (i.e. America’s lack of unilateral support for global jihad).

Ron Paul’s statements often sound like those of a card-carrying CPUSA member. Ron Paul talks about “the people on Wall Street” who don’t even care about inflation “because they make money off it” vs. “those middle class people”, (their numbers are growing and prospering) “especially those poor individuals” who are “TRYING to pay their bills” and “TRYING to keep a decent-paying job” as their standard of living goes down; the Communist Party of the United States of America agrees that working middle-class people are pitted against the wealthy, who, the CPUSA — at least formerly a foreign agency of the Russian government — and Ron Paul claim, exploit the middle class. Paul says that our economy could collapse if we went to war with Iran. Ron Paul suggested that Iran would close the Persian Gulf as a matter of course in response to a U.S. invasion (it probably would), not as a cause of one, despite Iran’s threats to shut the Strait of Hormuz (1984, 1997, 2006), in 2006 in an attempt to avoid sanctions.

Saint Augustin wrote of expansionism by Christian nations as an obligation that should be assumed seriously and purposefully by them: Let them ask, then, whether it is quite fitting for good men to rejoice in extended empire. For the iniquity of those with whom just wars are carried on favors the growth of a kingdom, which would certainly have been small if the peace and justice of neighbors had not by any wrong provoked the carrying on of war against them; and human affairs being thus more happy, all kingdoms would have been small, rejoicing in neighborly concord; and thus there would have been very many kingdoms of nations in the world, as there are very many houses of citizens in a city. Therefore, to carry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seems to bad men to be felicity, to good men necessity. (City of God, Book Four, Chapter 15). Furthermore, he wrote that it was unheard of to show mercy to defeated enemy nations: There are histories of numberless wars, both before the building of Rome and since its rise and the extension of its dominion; let these be read, and let one instance be cited in which, when a city had been taken by foreigners, the victors spared those who were found to have fled for sanctuary to the temples of their gods; or one instance in which a barbarian general gave orders that none should be put to the sword who had been found in this or that temple. (City of God, Book One, Chapter 2).

St. Thomas Aquinas, writing in his Summa Theologica on whether it is sinful to wage war and/or to lay ambushes, stated that it was lawful to lay ambushes and to lie to the enemy in the course of warfare, that soldiering in compliance with national duty is Christian, and that warfare to avenge sin is not wrong:

Whether it is lawful to lay ambushes in war?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is unlawful to lay ambushes in war. For it is written (Dt. 16:20): “Thou shalt follow justly after that which is just.” But ambushes, since they are a kind of deception, seem to pertain to injustice. Therefore it is unlawful to lay ambushes even in a just war.

Objection 2: Further, ambushes and deception seem to be opposed to faithfulness even as lies are. But since we are bound to keep faith with all men, it is wrong to lie to anyone, as Augustine states (Contra Mend. xv). Therefore, as one is bound to keep faith with one’s enemy, as Augustine states (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix), it seems that it is unlawful to lay ambushes for one’s enemies.

Objection 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 7:12): “Whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them”: and we ought to observe this in all our dealings with our neighbor. Now our enemy is our neighbor. Therefore, since no man wishes ambushes or deceptions to be prepared for himself, it seems that no one ought to carry on war by laying ambushes. On the contrary, Augustine says (Questions. in Hept. qu. x super Jos): “Provided the war be just, it is no concern of justice whether it be carried on openly or by ambushes”: and he proves this by the authority of the Lord, Who commanded Joshua to lay ambushes for the city of Hai (Joshua 8:2). I answer that, The object of laying ambushes is in order to deceive the enemy. Now a man may be deceived by another’s word or deed in two ways. First, through being told something false, or through the breaking of a promise, and this is always unlawful. No one ought to deceive the enemy in this way, for there are certain “rights of war and covenants, which ought to be observed even among enemies,” as Ambrose states (De Officiis i). Secondly, a man may be deceived by what we say or do, because we do not declare our purpose or meaning to him. Now we are not always bound to do this, since even in the Sacred Doctrine many things have to be concealed, especially from unbelievers, lest they deride it, according to Mt. 7:6: “Give not that which is holy, to dogs.” Wherefore much more ought the plan of campaign to be hidden from the enemy. For this reason among other things that a soldier has to learn is the art of concealing his purpose lest it come to the enemy’s knowledge, as stated in the Book on Strategy [*Stratagematum i, 1] by Frontinus. Such like concealment is what is meant by an ambush which may be lawfully employed in a just war. Nor can these ambushes be properly called deceptions, nor are they contrary to justice or to a well-ordered will. For a man would have an inordinate will if he were unwilling that others should hide anything from him.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

For 24 years, Iran has been murdering U.S. soldiers (American civilians, too). It intends to destroy us with an EMP produced by a nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude, reportedly has the rockets and missiles to do the job, and has practiced firing them in the manner Iran claims to deem appropriate to do the job. By Augustin’s reasoning, the Iranians who survived a nuclear attack would have done so because of Christ’s mercy, and those who willfully worship a false god and persecute those who worship the true one don’t deserve consideration. Along these lines, if you kill their first-born, that’s by God’s power, and truly just if they’re planning to murder you and have recently accelerated their practice of kidnapping and murdering your citizens in addition to taking up maritime kidnappings as military policy. (Hostage-taking by Iran is routine.) Saint Augustin wrote the following about kingdoms and piracy:

Saint Augustin, City of God, Book Four, Chapter 4:

“How Like Kingdoms Without Justice are to Robberies”

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, ” What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.”

Here is what St. Augustin wrote about the rise and fall of earthly kingdoms (City of God, Book Four, Chapter 34):

Concerning the Kingdom of the Jews, Which Was Founded by the One and True God, and Preserved by Him as Long as They Remained in the True Religion.
[…] And if they had not sinned against Him with impious curiosity, which seduced them like magic arts, and drew them to strange gods and idols, and at last led them to kill Christ, their kingdom would have remained to them, and would have been, if not more spacious, yet more happy, than that of Rome. And now that they are dispersed through almost all lands and nations, it is through the providence of that one true God; that whereas the images, altars, groves, and temples of the false gods are everywhere overthrown, and their sacrifices prohibited, it may be shown from their books how this has been foretold by their prophets so long before; lest, perhaps, when they should be read in ours, they might seem to be invented by us.

Saints Augustin and Aquinas would almost certainly support preemptive nuclear war against the whole Islamic world, and possibly the expulsion/execution of all Muslims (and other non-Christians) living in Christian territory, just as the Jews were expelled from Israel. Augustin would see the non-Christians as a security risk:

Saint Augustin, City of God, Book One, Chapter 1: For to this earthly city belong the enemies against whom I have to defend the city of God. Many of them, indeed, being reclaimed from their ungodly error, have become sufficiently creditable citizens of this city; but many are so inflamed with hatred against it, and are so ungrateful to its Redeemer for His signal benefits, as to forget that they would now be unable to utter a single word to its prejudice, had they not found in its sacred places, as they fled from the enemy’s steel, that life in which they now boast themselves.

Ron Paul has thoroughly misrepresented Christian just war. His alignment with the John Birch Society, CPUSA, and Vladimir Putin in their false allegations against US foreign and military policies, render everything he says and does suspect.

Iran and Russia

October 21, 2007

From RIA Novosti, we have:

Iran warns it can fire 11,000 rockets in one minute if attacked
20/10/2007 16:15 TEHRAN, October 20 (RIA Novosti) – Iran has the capability to fire 11,000 rockets at enemy bases within one minute if the country is attacked, a top commander in the Revolutionary Guards Corps said on Saturday.
“Within the first minute of any attack by enemies against our country, the missile and artillery unit of the ground force is capable of firing 11,000 missiles and shells at targets that are known to us,” Gen. Mahmoud Chaharbaghi, the top missile commander of the Revolutionary Guards, said on national TV.
Iran has precise data on the deployment of potential attackers’ military bases in the region, he said.
“A possible war will not last long, because within days we will reduce our enemies to ashes. The enemy must ask himself what losses he is prepared to suffer for his stupidity,” the commander said.


Putin calls for shared use of most of Caspian Sea
16/10/2007 14:41 TEHRAN, October 16 (RIA Novosti) – Russian President Vladimir Putin told a Caspian summit in Tehran that the bulk of the Caspian Sea should be left for the common use of its five littoral states.
“The Caspian Sea should not be covered by numerous state borders, sectors and exclusive zones,” Putin said. “The less territory they occupy and the more water remains in common use, the better.”
The Russian leader said the Caspian states could develop oil and gas resources under the seabed using existing national zones for mineral use, which have already been defined in the northern part of the sea.
“We believe that in the southern Caspian also, interested parties will be able to find a balanced and mutually acceptable solution. To reach an agreement on delimiting the seabed for mineral use, there is no need to wait for a convention to be drawn up on its legal status, we can act in a five-way format,” Putin said.


Russia, Iran reaffirm commitment to build nuclear plant on time

16/10/2007 23:12 (Recasts, adds background)
TEHRAN, October 16 (RIA Novosti) – Russia will complete Iran’s first nuclear power plant in Bushehr on schedule, the countries’ presidents said in a statement on Tuesday, while pledging commitment to the non-proliferation regime.
Reassurances on the Bushehr NPP come repeated delays to the completion of the plant, which Russia has attributed to payment arrears. Iran earlier in the year accused Moscow of yielding to Western pressure over the plant.
Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also said in their statement, released after bilateral talks in Tehran, that all disputes between Caspian littoral states should be resolved peacefully, and ruled out third countries’ military presence in the Caspian region, reiterating a declaration adopted at a Caspian summit earlier on Tuesday.

In Arabic, Azeri, Persian, and Turkish, the Caspian is often known as (rough equivalent) the Khazar Sea. The Khazars were Turkic people (perhaps Western Huns) who formed an empire — largely in what is now Russia — that was eventually destroyed by the rival Viking Varangi or Ruotsi people, whose leader, Rurik, appears on the basis of genetic testing to have been of Finno-Ugrian descent. The Khazars were largely responsible for the blocking of the jihads in Eastern Europe during the Middle Ages. They warred constantly with the Abbasid Caliphate, and for reasons that are not clear converted to Talmudic Judaism. The Varangi/Ruotsi occupied the power vacuum left when the Turkic Pecheneg tribe abandoned its land upon being chased away by the Khazars during a war. Upon the Khazars‘ return, the Varangi/Ruotsi could not be dislodged, called up continuous reinforcements, and eventually destroyed the Khazars. The chieftain who destroyed the Khazars was Svyatoslav, Duke of Kyiv, son of Prince Igor and Saint Olga. (Incidentally, Olga is the Slavicized version of the Nordic name Helga, and Oleg is the Slavicized version of the masculine form Helgi.) Although Duke Svyatoslav was a pagan who expressed contempt for Christianity and reared his favorite son, Vladimir, as a pagan, because Vladimir eventually converted to Christianity for diplomatic reasons and established Orthodox Christianity as the state religion of Russia, the Khazar Turks are viewed by many Russian nationalists as present in the form of the world’s Jews, and as responsible for most of Russia’s ills.

Russia is arming Iran with nukes and conventional weapons, helping it to take over Lebanon, and lying its way through the whole thing with its usual poisonous dezinformatsiya that the stupid Western elites keep lapping up like grateful dogs. No apparent cost has accrued to anyone for the “assassination plot” against Putin. That the detail was released that the plan was to do the job by suicide bomber further suggests that this is a ploy to convince the Western radical and well-meaning idiots to destroy themselves in a grand, helpful gesture. What could drive America into the fatal bear hug of Russia better than saying that it too is a victim of Iranian terrorism? What can weaken American resolve better than “showing” that Russia can obtain positive mercantile and political results through “negotiations” with Iran “despite” this? Only saying that some Iranian had planned to fly a plane into Putin would have given away more clearly that Russia is feeding us disinformation. Now, the outcome of these fraudulent negotiations is anti-Western, not anti-Iranian. Let us pray there are people in power who are on America’s side, who understand all this, and who will act on it.