Minneapolis Star Tribune Blames ‘Anti-Muslim Tensions’ for St. Cloud Mass Stabbing by ‘Soldier of the Islamic State’

strib-social-card-sized-770x415xt

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Sept. 18, 2016:

Just hours after a young Somali immigrant stabbed nine people at a shopping mall in St. Cloud, a mid-sized town in central Minnesota, the far-Left Minneapolis Star Tribune published an article hinting that the suspect may have been inspired by “anti-Muslim tensions.” The article was later scrubbed and replaced with a new article that directly raised the question of whether the attack by Dahir Adan was motivated by previous anti-Muslim incidents in the city.

Last night I reported here at PJ Media on the stabbing attack and the reports from local St. Cloud police that the suspect, who at that time hadn’t been named, had made references to “Allah” and asked at least one victim whether they were Muslim.

Earlier today, family members named Dahir Adan, a local Somali man who came to the United States 15 years ago and was a junior at St. Cloud State University, as the attacker.

But at 2:42 p.m. today, Pat Pheifer of the Star Tribune published an article, now removed and replaced on the newspaper’s website, titled “Anti-Muslim Tension Isn’t New in St. Cloud.”

I screen captured the article before it was scrubbed and replaced.

In the opening paragraphs, Pheifer writes so ambiguously that one could easily conclude that someone motivated by anti-Muslim beliefs was responsible for the attack:

A cloud of anti-Muslim sentiment and tension has hung over St. Cloud for the past seven years, with incidents ranging from bullying Somali and other East African immigrants at St. Cloud Technical High School, to women being screamed at in grocery stores, pig intestines wrapped around the door handles of a halal grocery store, and offensive billboards and license plates.The most physically injurious incident came Saturday evening when a man stabbed nine people at the city’s Crossroads Centerbefore the attacker was killed inside the mall by an off-duty police officer. No one but the attacker was killed.

Authorities said the man reportedly asked at least one victim whether they were Muslim before assaulting them and referred to Allah during the attacks.

So after  a recitation of previous anti-Muslim incidents, Pheifer introduces “the most physically injurious incident” — the mass stabbing at Crossroads Center. A reader could understandably think that this new incident was similar in nature to those just recounted.

And the ambiguous description of the incident might lead one to conclude that it was anti-Muslim in nature.

Only at this point is there any mention that the attack might have been motivated by radical Islamic ideology.

ISIL, on Twitter, claimed credit for the mall violence and called the attacked “a soldier of the Islamic State.”

star-tribune-st-cloud-stabbing-anti-muslim

Nowhere else in the original article, which continues with more recitation of alleged “anti-Muslim” activity in St. Cloud, is there any indication that the attacker was Muslim and the victims targeted in the attack non-Muslim.

And despite the fact that the attacker’s name was already circulating in the media,Dahir Adan’s name never appears.

I wasn’t the only one to spot this problematic wording. Journalist Asra Nomani took issue with the article too:

Someone at the Star Tribune must have noted it as well, or been aware of some of the criticisms of how the article was framed, because without any notice the article was scrubbed and replaced with a different version posted at 8:21pm.

But now the new version of the article directly asks whether Dahir Adan may have been acting in response to the supposed anti-Muslim atmosphere in St. Cloud:

St. Cloud has dealt with tensions between Muslims and some non-Muslims for the past seven years, with incidents including bullying of Somali and other East African immigrants at St. Cloud Technical High School, women being screamed at in grocery stores, pig intestines draped on the entry of a halal grocery store, and offensive billboards and license plates.

Whether those incidents motivated a 22-year-old Somali man who stabbed nine people at the Crossroads Center on Saturday evening isn’t known and may never be known. The attacker was killed inside the mall by an off-duty police officer 5 minutes after the first 911 call was made. All of his victims survived.

Authorities said the man reportedly asked at least one victim whether they were Muslim before assaulting them and referred to Allah during the attacks. On Twitter, ISIL called the attacker “a soldier of the Islamic state.”

Such reporting, blaming non-Muslims for what is now clearly an attack inspired by a suspect inspired by radical Islam, in the absence of any evidence to support the claim, is itself inflammatory.

One could even claim that such unsupported assertions by the American media actually aid and justify the Islamic State’s “persecuted-Muslims” narrative.

As the presidential election enters its final phase, we can expect more, not less, of this yellow journalism. And when the election is over, the establishment media will emerge even more tarnished and distrusted by the public than ever before.

Stephen Coughlin: The U.S. “Reporter’s Rolodex” of Islamic Advisers

SPJ-GuidelinesThis special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Stephen Coughlin Moment with Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of Unconstrained Analytics.org and the author of the new book,Catastrophic Failure.

Stephen discussed The U.S. “Reporter’s Rolodex” of Islamic Advisers, unveiling how the Muslim Brotherhood sets our media’s guidelines for discussing the war on terror.

Also see:

Plenty of Palestinian Passes – Plus Alan Dershowitz destroys in 4 minutes the global lie of “human rights”

1354by Noah Beck
Special to IPT News
February 9, 2016

Activists who genuinely want to see peace between Israelis and Palestinians need to internalize a memorably alliterative warning: plenty of Palestinian passes perpetuate the impasse. The more global opinion ignores or rewards irresponsible behavior by Palestinians, the more likely renewed violence (rather than peace) becomes.

There are enough instances of unfair and counterproductive “Palestinian passes” to fill a tome, but here are some recent examples.

PASSING ON HAMAS BELLICOSITY

Probably the most important pass currently given to the Palestinians is the global silence over news that Hamas is preparing to launch another war against Israel while distressing ordinary Israelis with their ominous tunneling sounds. Such silence by the world’s most important media, international bodies, political leaders, NGOs and academics helps keep Hamas in power, and when Hamas eventually launches new hostilities against Israel, many of the same voices that are now silent will blame Israel for the resulting suffering.

Hamas bellicosity is constant, and constantly ignored. Rather than prepare Palestinians for peace, Hamas glorifies death and promotes viciously hateful ideologies. A Hamas TV broadcast announces, “We have no problem with death. We are not like the children of Israel…we yearn for death and Martyrdom…Every mother…must nurse her children on hatred of the sons of Zion.”

Last April, Iran reportedly sent Hamas tens of millions of dollars to rebuild tunnels and restock missile arsenals destroyed in 2014 by Israel during Operation Protective Edge. Instead of global sanctions or censure over its support for terrorism, Iran was rewarded with a nuclear deal that just unlocked $100 billion in frozen assets, some of which are expected to support more terrorism.

Hamas regularly starts pointless wars with Israel that doom Gaza to inevitable devastation. Then, when international sympathy and donations pour in, Hamas diverts the resources to rebuilding its offensive capabilities/tunnels (rather than destroyed homes in Gaza).

Hamas recently accelerated its tunnel-digging program. Indeed, three collapsing tunnels killed eight Hamas diggers in late January and another two last week.

Such reports establish that Hamas is diverting resources from rehabilitating Gaza to attacking Israel, and yet the world still blames Israel for Gazan misery.

PASSING ON HAMAS ABUSE OF GAZANS

Ironically, those who claim to excoriate Israel out of their concern for the welfare of Gaza don’t seem to care when Hamas causes Gazan suffering.  At least 160 Gazan children died digging Hamas’ tunnels intended to kill Israeli children. Hamas tortures political prisoners next to a girl’s school and kills its critics (it executed 25 in 2014). Hamas executed 120 Gazans for breaching a curfew. Hamas kills fellow Palestinians when its rockets fall short. Unsurprisingly, in a poll last September, Gazans actually preferred Israeli rule to Hamas.

PASSING ON PALESTINIAN INCITEMENT

Facebook tolerates Palestinian incitement but quickly responds to complaints about Jewish racism. The company is clearly able to control the threats circulating on its site, as shown by Facebook’s recent decision to stop gun sale promotions, making thecontinued incitement against Jews and Israelis on Facebook all the more outrageous. Facebook has much to learn from its tech rival, Google, which is reportedly directing jihadi search queries to sites that deradicalize.

Global opinion seems indifferent to how incitement (including in Palestinian pop culture) contributes to Palestinian violence. Instead, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon blames Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli policy (settlements), which is like blaming the November Paris attacks on France’s policy against Islamic veils in schools (ironically, Israel actually allows such veils in its schools).

When Israelis kill knife-wielding Palestinians in self-defense, Sweden’s foreign minister calls for a probe into Israeli “extra-judicial killing,” but she was conspicuously silent after French police preemptively killed a machete-wielding Islamist trying to hack them in a Paris police station.

Except for attacks on Israelis, world leaders and commentators never try to blame the victims of Islamist terror. This hateful, blame-the-victim exception for Jews is not limited to the Jewish state. According to recent polls, many of the French believe that Jews in France are responsible for a rise in anti-Semitism.

DIPLOMATIC PASSES

Those who claim to want Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation should recognize that pressuring only Israel actually reduces the prospects for peace (as an architect of the Oslo Peace Accords observed about the Obama administration’s fruitless efforts). Unfortunately, France is repeating Obama’s mistakes with its latest threat to recognize Palestine if Israelis doesn’t make enough concessions to those trying to stab them.

PASSING ON ISRAELI VICTIMS

Phyllis Chesler shows how the New York Times employs a double standard in reporting on victims of violence. Palestinians are personalized with names, ages, and sympathetic eyewitnesses. That rarely happens with Israeli victims.

More recently, CAMERA highlights how leading U.S. papers downplay or ignore the recent Palestinian stabbing murders of Israeli women.

1353A CBS News headline last week provided a classic example after gunmen attempted a terrorist attack outside Jerusalem’s old city. Three terrorists died after killing a 19-year-old policewoman. The headline? “3 Palestinians killed as daily violence grinds on.” Thankfully, the network apologized and changed the headline. But the original version would have been akin to a 9/11 headline saying, “19 Muslims Die in Plane Crashes.”

PASSING ON ISRAEL’S POSITIVE STORIES

A corollary of the pro-Palestinian pass on negative coverage is passing on positive coverage of Israel. There has been virtually no mention of Israel’s disproportionately generous humanitarian aid efforts, or its exceptional contributions to solving global problems relating to health, energy, agriculture, security, (as Israel has done in Africa).

If the world knew just how important Israel is to solving some of the planet’s toughest problems, and how Israelis can also be victims of war and terror, global opinion might be less judgmental and more protective of the only democracy in the Middle East, as the tiny Jewish state does its best to survive in the world’s toughest neighborhood.

All of these types of passes grow exponentially worse whenever war breaks out, usually after Hamas launches one too many missiles at Israeli civilians. When Israel can no longer accept about 40 percent of its population living in range of deadly rocket attacks and finally does what any normal country would do – take military action against those attacking it – the global media bias moves into overdrive, enabled by “Pallywood,” journalistic malpractice, and fear of Hamas retribution. Casualties inevitably mount, especially thanks to Hamas’s unethical use of human shields, emotions run high, and media outlets compete to get “breaking news” out first, resulting in less time to check facts and more groupthink pressure to favor the perceived underdog. The media slant then exacerbates the bias from world leaders, international bodies, NGOs, academics, and anti-Israel boycott movements.

Thus, with each war, Israel gets more demonized while Palestinians are increasingly presented as blameless victims. Tragically, these biases actually perpetuate the conflict. Those who genuinely want peace should focus global media attention, lobbying, and resources on Palestinian intransigence and Hamas’ obsessive focus on attacking and trying to “destroy Israel.”

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East.

***

Alan Dershowitz destroys in 4 minutes the global lie of “human rights”

Qatar Shuts Down Al Jazeera America After Wasting Over $2 Billion

al-jazeera-osama-bin-laden

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 13, 2016:

Al Jazeera was a great way for little totalitarian Qatar to project its power regionally and even globally, though mainly by aiding the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror groups.

Al Jazeera America seemed like a no brainer. Pay Al Gore $500 mil for his crony capitalist lefty cable channel. Rebrand. Deal Qatar in as a major domestic player in American politics.

Unfortunately for Qatar…

1. Americans didn’t want to watch Al Jazeera America. The channel had no viewers

2. It got involved in a lawsuit with Al Gore over money

3. Its executives hired women and Jews and then began making sexism and anti-Semitic comments. Also they had no actual experience. So more lawsuits, personnel changes, etc…

4. There were still no viewers

5. The HGH story and likely lawsuits resulting from it

6. The price of oil hurt Qatar’s bottom line

So you won’t have Al Jazeera America to kick around anymore. The channel which no one watches, will shut down. Though the many lawsuits spawned by its rotten corrupt existence are likely to continue.

But the real question is how much money did Qatar blow through on this mess? A New York Post story this summer estimated $2 billion. But that isn’t counting the cost of fighting the various lawsuits. and those wouldn’t have been cheap.

Also see:

Video: Jamie Glazov on “Media’s Willful Blindness about Islam”

Counter Jihad Coalition, by Jamie Glazov, May 27, 2015:

In the video below, Frontpage Magazine editor Jamie Glazov rocks the Eagle Forum of California State Conference, 2015.

He tackled The Media’s Willful Blindness about Islam, Regaining Integrity in the News and Entertainment Media, The Left’s Unholy Alliance With Islam, and much more:

A Revisionist Muslim History of America

1280px-Quran_Tunisia-450x338Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 13, 2015:

Turkish President Erdogan’s claim that Columbus encountered a mosque in Cuba (the explorer actually saw a rock whose shape he compared to the dome of a mosque) and a Saudi Imam claiming that Columbus had sailed to America to attack Muslims are typical of an emerging genre of Muslim revisionist history that lays claim to America based on an imaginary earlier Muslim presence here.

While these examples may be laughable, Muslim historical revisionism has taken root in academia. It can be found in PBS broadcasts and in a recent New York Times piece.

[See PBS: America’s “Most Trusted Institution” and its Coverage of Islam]

In the New York Times, Peter Manseau asserts that, “There is an inconvenient footnote to the assertion that Islam is anti-American: Muslims arrived here before the founding of the United States — not just a few, but thousands.”

The description of Islam as anti-American has nothing to do with the Muslim date of arrival. Instead it refers to Islam’s theocratic erosion of the line between mosque and state, its theological doctrines of violence against non-Muslims and women, as well as the belief of a succession of killers crying “Allahu Akbar” that they can achieve a paradise full of virgins by killing Americans. The Muslims who had the biggest influence on the United States were nineteen men who boarded planes on September 11.

But Manseau goes on to offer up three examples of Muslims in the early days of the United States.

“In 1528, a Moroccan slave called Estevanico was shipwrecked along with a band of Spanish explorers near the future city of Galveston, Tex. The city of Azemmour, in which he was raised, had been a Muslim stronghold against European invasion until it fell during his youth. While given a Christian name after his enslavement, he eventually escaped his Christian captors and set off on his own through much of the Southwest.”

Manseau neglects to mention that Estevanico or Esteban de Dorantes was African, not Arab. Morocco was a major slave market and Africans in Morocco today are still often taunted as slaves. If Estevanico was ever Muslim, it was because he or his ancestors had been enslaved and converted to Islam.

And Manseau’s history only gets worse.

Estevanico didn’t escape his masters. He set out as a scout for them. He did disobey them by resuming a faith healing routine that began during an earlier journey in which he along with some members of his expedition claimed to be a “Son of the Sun” and cured diseases with the sign of the cross.

It’s hard to think of a less Islamic form of behavior.

During his expedition, Estevanico pretended to be a shaman, gathered followers, including a harem, and demanded turquoise and women from the local Indians in exchange for magical healing. Meanwhile he sent back crosses of different sizes to his Spanish masters to show them the most promising Indian villages. Eventually he reached the Zuni who killed him for, in some accounts, wearing offensive shamanic clothing from other tribes or for demanding women from them.

Zuni accounts claim that he molested their women. A similar report comes from Coronado who said that, “The Indians say that they killed him here because the Indians of Chichiticale said that he was a bad man and not like the Christians who never killed women, and he killed them, and because he assaulted their women, whom the Indians love better than themselves.”

Black nationalists tried to make a hero out of Estevanico, but he makes a remarkably poor hero. He was a scam artist exploiting the native population, aiding the Spaniards and abusing women along the way. Some of this makes him a tolerably passing Muslim, but there is no real evidence that he was a Muslim aside from his land of origin. At times he appears to have practiced Christianity and later adopted the persona of an Indian shaman.  Manseau tries to put the best face possible on his history but deceives readers in much the same way that his hero deceived the native population.

But Manseau’s next “Muslim” hero is if anything even worse than Estevanico.

“The best known Muslim to pass through the port at New Orleans was Abdul-Rahman Ibrahim ibn Sori, a prince in his homeland whose plight drew wide attention. As one newspaper account noted, he had read the Bible and admired its precepts, but added, ‘His principal objections are that Christians do not follow them,’” Manseau writes.

This description once again leaves out quite a lot.

The so-called Prince Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Sori has been a major figure in Muslim revisionist history. He appeared in a PBS documentary which was targeted to black audiences. Unfortunately for them, Abdul Rahman was actually a racist who boasted that “not a drop of Negro blood runs in his veins. He places the Negro on a scale of being infinitely below the Moor.”

He was notorious for his abuse of slaves. A letter mentions that, “M. Foster actually made him manager of the plantation, had continually to keep an eye upon him and to curb his sanguinary temper to prevent him from exercising cruelty on his fellow servants.”

Abdul Rahman, by his own account, was a Muslim Moor sold into slavery by the Africans he had been attacking. He was a violent racist who despised Africans and abused the slaves under his power.

The parallel with Estevanico’s abuse of the native population is striking.

However much of what we know about Abdul Rahman came from his own mythmaking. It’s quite likely that he was never a prince of anything. Like Estevanico, he may have just been a talented con artist who was good at raising money by telling stories.

And during his grand tour of America, he promised to introduce Christianity to Africa.

As Muslim role models go, Abdul Rahman manages to be even worse than Estevanico. Manseau leaves all these details out because they change the narrative. Neither of his Muslim role models appears to have been particularly Muslim. Both casually dabbled in Christianity when it suited them.

But Manseau goes on. “Among the enslaved Muslims in North Carolina was a religious teacher named Omar ibn Said. Recaptured in 1810 after running away from a cruel master he called a kafir (an infidel), he became known for inscribing the walls of his jail cell with Arabic script. He wrote an account of his life in 1831, describing how in freedom he had loved to read the Quran, but in slavery his owners had converted him to Christianity.”

Manseau fails to mention that “Omar was regularly willing and able to reassure all visiting Christians that he was a true convert as he often wrote in Arabic what he called ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ and the Twenty-Third Psalm.” Or “Prince Moro’s” eager wish that “Mohamedans may receive the gospel.”

Not to mention Omar’s autobiography in which he wrote that, “When I was a Mohammedan I prayed thus… But now I pray “Our Father”, etc., in the words of our Lord Jesus the Messiah.”

Manseau’s description of Omar’s autobiography is blatantly dishonest. As with Estevanico and Abdul Rahman, he has to leave out basic facts of the lives of these “Muslims” to accommodate his agenda. But Manseau is following in the footsteps of other revisionist historians who insisted that Omar’s copying of material from the Koran in an Arabic he had mostly forgotten proved his commitment to Islam.

The basic fact he has to leave out is that Omar described himself as a devout Christian. His other two “Muslims” consist of a man who promised to bring Christianity to Africa and another who played a shaman when he wasn’t making crosses.

The deceits of Peter Manseau and the New York Times, which never bothers fact checking even the wildest Muslim claims, are in their own way every bit as dishonest as Erdogan’s Cuban mosque. The difference is that they have the protective coloration of academia and journalism. Their dishonesty is more sedate and buried under protective layers of omissions and distortions.

Revisionist Muslim histories of America should be rejected, whether they come from Erdogan or the New York Times, because they are built on lies. And a history built on lies cannot stand.

Islamic State Prime Time

nmFrontpage, by Dawn Perlmutter, January 22, 2015:

ISIS began the 2015 season by releasing a new prime time series of scripted reality shows available on the internet with free previews appearing on most major media outlets. Writers at Al-Furqaan and Al Hayat Media Productions, media arms of the Islamic State that are known for their slick productions, must have decided that people were getting bored with the same old series and reruns that insult America and Britain by beheading their citizens. The writers have been working on different scripts for the new season to peak the media’s interest, earn rave reviews from their fans and increase their viewing audience.

The premiere episode aired on January 12, 2015 titled “Uncovering an enemy within”, introducing a new actor, a child star, a 10-year-old boy who executes two alleged Russian spies by walking behind them and shooting them repeatedly in the head. Part horror film part drama, the show opens with the two being interrogated in Russian about their alleged attempt to infiltrate ISIS. After both men confess to infiltrating ISIS to gather information for the Russian intelligence agency FSB, the video skips to an outdoor scene where the alleged spies are kneeling in a field before a Jihadi Fighter and the new child star who is armed with a pistol.

The dramatic confessions lead to the unforgettable main lines in the film where the Jihadi fighter says, “Allah has gifted the Islamic State’s security agency with the apprehension of these two spies,”… “By Allah’s grace, they are now in the custody of the lion cubs of the Caliphate.” The jihadist then nudges the child forward. The 10-year-old calmly carries out the killings, with two close range shots to the men’s heads, followed by another two taps, representing the best and the well-trained of the boy scouts of the caliphate. This film is not as much about vengeance against the spies of the Islamic State but more of a coming-of-age story, a tale of growing-up-jihadi. This film sets the tone for the entire new season, introducing new characters, ratcheting up the violence and leaving fans anticipating future shows wondering how it can get any better than this.

The second episode of the new season was released on January 20, 2015. This film is a take on scripted reality hostage shows from the previous season, it had a similar plot, costumes and scenery, however it contains a new twist starring Japanese nationals Kenji Goto Jogo and Haruna Yukawa playing the leading roles deviating from Western victims. Goto, a freelance journalist, and Yukawa, a self proclaimed military operator, are the latest civilians to get their asses caught in the middle of a war, resulting in putting Japan in a bind. This episode in the new ISIS reality series is called “A Message to the Government and People of Japan”.

The storyline is a sequel to last years season where the enemies of ISIS were America and Britain and the messages were directed to President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron and America. A British national continues to play the infamous main character Jihadi John, who is rumored to be up for an Emmy Award for the for Best Performance by a Leading Jihadist in the category for evading capture and drone strikes.

The January 20th episode is addressed to the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Jihadi John threatens to kill both men within 72 hours unless a $200 million ransom is paid in full. The storyline makes it clear that the ransom amount is compensation for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe offering non-military aid in the same amount to countries affected by the Islamic State on his tour of the Middle East. This drama poses an interesting dilemma since both Japan and the Islamic State are shame/honor societies in which saving face is more important than saving life. For this reason, this author predicts that Japan is not going to pay the ransom. It is not the cost but rather the disgrace that will prevent them from giving into the hostages demands.

Japan did not comply with hostages demands to withdraw its forces from Iraq in 2004 when Japanese citizen, 24 year old Shosei Koda was kidnapped by Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor group of the Islamic State. On October 29, 2004 jihadists videotaped the beheading of Koda cutting off his head while he was held down on an American flag. His decapitated body was found wrapped in the flag prior to being returned to Japan.

This Japanese hostage episode has many people talking. Interestingly many comments regarding hostage taking seem to indicate that ISIS has disrespected the wrong country. That is the attitude people used to have about America prior to this administration’s decision to negotiate with jihadists by exchanging five top Taliban commanders for a traitor and not sufficiently responding to Americans being publicly beheaded. As usual the media production companies of the Islamic State leave us tense and anxious waiting to see what will happen next.

We will not know how this hostage episode turns out until the next film airs later this week. My prediction is that Jihadi John will kill both men. In fact the beheading scene may have already been filmed. Japan is about to become a member country of the ISIS beheading club. What this season requires is the revival of a classic American genre. It’s time to play cowboys and jihadists.

Qatar Awareness Campaign – Message for Al Gore

10444640_541029836027957_3198265898780002919_nDear Mr. Albert Gore:

This letter is being sent to you on behalf of the Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.  The purpose is to inform you and the public of the activities of Qatar, the country which owns Al Jazeera America, the network which was established following your sale of CurrentTV to Al Jazeera for $500 million in 2013.

As cited below, in fact, you and your business partner, Mr. Joel Hyatt, engaged in two major transactions with Qatar: first the purchase of Newsworld International in 2004, from which you launched CurrentTV; secondly, the selling back of the station to Qatar to broadcast Al Jazeera America, for the price of $500 million.

We urge to you read the information below, which includes evidence that Qatar is arguably the preeminent sponsor of terror in the world today.  It is a benefactor of the genocidal armies of ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram; it is involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking through a relationship with the Pakistani National Logistics Cell; and profits from operating a virtual slave state.  

Qatar is involved in terror operations from Nigeria to Gaza to Syria to Iraq

Here is pertinent background on your involvement with the Doha-based network, and their ties to Islamists who promote mass murder of religious and ethnic minorities over the airwaves.

  • In 1996, then Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, provided a $137 million loan to start Al Jazeera. Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani was the ruling monarch of Qatar from 1995-2013.
  • Al Jazeera is home to the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who reaches an estimated 80 million viewers each week. Qaradawi has ordered the killing of Jews, and Shiite Muslims in Syria.
  • In 2004, you and your partner Joel Hyatt (who is a Trustee of the Qatar-financed Brookings Institute) purchased Newsworld International from Vivendi Universal Entertainment to establish CurrentTV. Vivendi was (and is) partially owned by Qatar Holding.
  • In 2013, CurrentTV was sold to Al Jazeera for a reported $500 million. Owning 20% of the company, you reportedly profited personally $100 million from the sale.
  • In September 2014, you and Hyatt sued Al Jazeera for funds that remained in escrow. Al Jazeera has now filed a countersuit.

Your lawsuits notwithstanding, in light of Al Jazeera’s consistent and vocal support for the Muslim Brotherhood and various jihadi groups, we ask that you consider the attached sourced report on Qatar’s activities.  The links cited are vetted and credible sources.  We hope you take the time to verify the truth of the statements for yourself.

After doing so, the Coalition of the Qatar Awareness Campaign calls on you to exert due influence on the Qatari government to cease any type of involvement in all forms of Islamic terrorism, slavery, and drug trafficking!

Sincerely,

Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret) – AllenBWest.com

Charles Ortel – Washington Times

Frank Gaffney, Jr. – Center for Security Policy

Pamela Geller –  Atlas Shrugs

Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret) – Chairman, Stand Up America

Robert Spencer – Jihad Watch

Walid Shoebat – Shoebat.com

**

& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.

Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
Twitter: @stopqatarnow

** Select signatures as of 9/27.  The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.

Qatar Awareness Campaign – The Stream

qatar_awareness_campaign_logoMs. Malika Bilal and Ms. Femi Oke

Al Jazeera English

PO Box 23127

Doha – Qatar

 

Dear Ms. Bilal and Ms. Femi Oke:

This letter is being sent to you on behalf of the Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.  The purpose is to inform you and the public of the activities of Qatar, the country which owns Al Jazeera, the network on which you are co-hosts of the program, The Stream.

We urge to you read the information below, which includes evidence that Qatar is arguably the preeminent sponsor of terror in the world today.  It is a benefactor of the genocidal armies of ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram; it is involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking through a relationship with the Pakistani National Logistics Cell; and profits from operating a virtual slave state.  Qatar is involved in terror operations from Nigeria to Gaza to Syria to Iraq

So the public understands why this letter is addressed to you both, who are American citizens and co-hosts of an Al Jazeera daily program, here is pertinent background on the Doha-based network.

  • In 1996, then Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, provided a $137 million loan to start Al Jazeera. Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani was the ruling monarch of Qatar from 1995-2013.
  • Al Jazeera is based out of Doha, the capital of Qatar.
  • In July 2013, 22 employees of Al Jazeera resigned after the station “air[ed] lies and misle[d] viewers” (according to Al Jazeera correspondent) regarding the Egyptian revolution on July 4, which ousted Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi.
  • Al Jazeera is home to the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader (and Morsi-backer) Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who reaches an estimated 80 million viewers each week.

In light of Al Jazeera’s consistent and vocal support for the Muslim Brotherhood and their associated terror campaigns, we ask that you consider the attached sourced report on Qatar’s activities.  The links cited are vetted and credible sources.  We hope you take the time to verify the truth of the statements for yourself.

After doing so, the Coalition of the Qatar Awareness Campaign calls on you to exert due influence on the Qatari government to cease any type of involvement in all forms of Islamic terrorism, slavery, and drug trafficking!

Sincerely,

Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret) – AllenBWest.com

Charles Ortel – Washington Times

Frank Gaffney, Jr. – Center for Security Policy

Pamela Geller –  Atlas Shrugs

Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret) – Chairman, Stand Up America

Robert Spencer – Jihad Watch

Walid Shoebat – Shoebat.com

**

& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.

Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
Twitter: @stopqatarnow

** Select signatures as of 9/27.  The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.

CC: PR, Media Relations of Al Jazeera

The Media’s Silence to Hamas’ Genocidal Venom

F131115EN04-450x307By Robert Spencer:

The Spanish government on Monday announced that it had “provisionally suspended” sales of weapons to Israel because of its supposed targeting of civilians in Gaza. This came a day after the Obama Administration declared that it was “appalled” by Israel’s “disgraceful” shelling of a UN school in Gaza. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon called the shelling a “moral outrage” and a “criminal act.” The only problem with all this moral indignation is that it is wrongly placed on the victim rather than the perpetrator, and bears witness to the success of Hamas’s propaganda barrage.

These are just two of the most recent examples of the success of Hamas’s skillful manipulation of the mainstream media, and the eagerness of the media to be manipulated – an eagerness so great that amid the frenzy to demonize Israel in the court of world opinion, Hamas’s oft-reiterated genocidal bloodlust and brazen breaking of ceasefire agreements goes unreported and ignored.

The U.S. condemnation of the Israeli shelling of the UN school was a particular victory. Jeff Dunetz reported in Truth Revolt Monday that “evidence is emerging that the Israeli strike hit outside of the school and the bodies were moved into the courtyard to make it look like Israel hit the school.” This wouldn’t be remotely close to the first time that Palestinian jihadis have been caught faking Israeli “atrocities” – recently they even billed a still from a horror movie as a fresh Israeli killing of a Palestinian civilian.

Meanwhile, Hamas is cheerfully above-board about how it manipulates the mainstream media. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported in July that “in light of the recent round of fighting in Gaza, the Hamas interior ministry has issued guidelines to Gaza Strip social media users for reporting events and discussing them with outsiders.” These guidelines included this unabashedly Orwellian instruction: “Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian from Gaza or Palestine, before we talk about his status in jihad or his military rank. Don’t forget to always add ‘innocent civilian’ or ‘innocent citizen’ in your description of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.”

But the international media has been almost unanimously indifferent to how it is being played. Nor does it show much interest in the numerous reports of Hamas launching attacks against Israel from civilian areas, so as to provoke retaliatory strikes that can be used for propaganda purposes. The Indian network NDTV reported Tuesday that they had witnessed Hamas constructing a rocket silo “under a tent right next to the hotel where our team was staying. Minutes later, we saw the rocket being fired, just before the 72-hour ceasefire came into effect.” NDTV noted that they were publishing their report “after our team left the Gaza strip – Hamas has not taken very kindly to any reporting of its rockets being fired.” The network, which is no friend of Israel, concluded: “But just as we reported the devastating consequences of Israel’s offensive on Gaza’s civilians, it is equally important to report on how Hamas places those very civilians at risk by firing rockets deep from the heart of civilian zones.”

Read more at Front Page

Forty questions for the international media in Gaza

truthBy David Bernstein:

Reprinted with the permission of the author from the (excellent) British “Harry’s place” blog.

1. Have you or any of your colleagues been intimidated by Hamas?

2. Do you feel restricted in your ability to ‘say what you see’ in Gaza?

3. How do you feel about the Spanish journalist who said Hamas would kill any journalist if they filmed rocket fire?

4. Has Hamas pressured you to delete anything you have published?

5. Has Hamas ever threatened to take your phone, laptop or camera?

6. Has Hamas ever taken the phone, laptop or camera of a colleague in Gaza?

7. Have you seen Hamas fighters in Gaza?

8. If yes, why have you not directly reported Hamas fighting activity when you are eye-witnesses in Gaza, but rather indirectly reported about what the IDF says they Hamas has done?

9. Are you scared to publish photos of Hamas operatives on your Twitter page, or broadcast images of Hamas fighting and aggression on your news channel?

10. Have you published any photos of terrorists launching rockets in Gaza? If so, are these images being turned down by your newspaper or broadcaster?

11. Have you thought of interviewing the traumatised residents of southern Israel?

12. When Israeli authorities say that most of the dead in Gaza are terrorists, and Hamas says most of the dead in Gaza are civilians, how do you differentiate?

13. When Hamas Health Ministry statistics contradict Hamas’ own propaganda and reveal that mostly men of fighting age have died so far in Gaza, does it give you pause for thought?

14. Is an underage armed terrorist still counted as a terrorist or a child when killed? Or both? Do you explain to your readers how this is possible?

nickcaseytweet15. Have you put to Hamas spokespersons that firing rockets from civilian areas in a war situation will draw return fire and lead to the death of civilians?

16. Nick Casey of the Wall Street Journal tweeted: “you have to wonder with the shelling, how patients at Shifa hospital feel as Hamas uses it as a safe place to see media.” Never mind wondering; did you ask any patients how they feel?

17. And how do you feel about the fact that Casey subsequently deleted his tweet?

Read more at Washington Post

Also see:

 

 

 

WHY YOU DON’T SEE HAMAS FIRING ROCKETS ON TV

Hamas-RocketsBreitbart, by JAMES DELINGPOLE:

From the Facebook page of Israeli filmmaker Michael Grynszpan:

I met today with a Spanish journalist who just came back from Gaza. We talked about the situation there. He was very friendly. I asked him how comes we never see on television channels reporting from Gaza any Hamas people, no gunmen, no rocket launcher, no policemen.. We only see civilians on these reports, mostly women and children. He answered me frankly : “it’s very simple, we did see Hamas people there launching rockets, they were close to our hotel, but if ever we dare pointing our camera on them they would simply shoot at us and kill us.” Wooh, impressive. Then I asked him “would you mind saying that on camera? I can film you explaining this…” For some reason I cannot really understand he refused and almost ran away. I guess my camera is as dangerous as Hamas threats… So just for you to know, the truth will never appear on the images you see on television.

As the Elderofziyon blog reports, this has long been common practice among Islamist militias.

It is worth reminding people about how reporters in southern Lebanon dealt with Hezbollah intimidation in 2006. CNN’s Nic Robertson dutifully accompanied Hezbollah on a planned tour of a bombed out building, repeating Hezbollah’s talking points about not seeing any military targets there and not telling viewers that it was staged entirely by Hezbollah.

Only when he was safely back in the US, and challenged on TV about his report, did he admit the truth, as reported by Newsbusters:

Hezbollah has “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations,” that the terrorist group “had control of the situation. They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn’t have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath,” and he even contradicted Hezbollah’s self-serving spin: “There’s no doubt that the [Israeli] bombs there are hitting Hezbollah facilities.”

 

Profs Blame Pro-Israel Bias for Stereotyping Muslims

Pro-Israel-media-biasFront Page, by Andrew Harrod:

Arabs and Muslims have an image problem in media and entertainment as a result of a pro-Israel political agenda. So claimed Edmund Ghareeb and Jack Shaheen, professors at American and New York Universities, respectively, on June 11, 2014, before an audience of forty middle-aged individuals at Washington, D.C. Jerusalem Fund think tank.

Ghareeb and Shaheen’s presentation, “Portraying Arabs: 30 Years Later,” commemorated their respective 1984 publications, Split Vision: The Portrayal of Arabs in the American Media and The TV Arab.  Drawing upon personal experiences, Ghareeb decried a “lack of balance” in Middle East news coverage in Israel’s favor, although groups such as CAMERA and Honest Reporting routinely demonstrate the reverse. According to Ghareeb, this allegedly biased media stereotyping “dehumanizes a people” and “allows for the use of force” against Arabs.

As evidence for this dubious claim, Ghareeb relied upon equally dubious sources such as Senator William Fulbright, who announced on television in 1973 that “Israel controls the United States Senate” and later became a registered lobbyist for Saudi Arabia.  Ghareeb also praised the reporting of  Peter Jennings as an isolated example of balanced Middle East coverage and labeled Orientalism author Edward Said an “important figure” for writing, Covering Islam:  How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World.  He then cited Muhammad Hassanein Heikal, longtime editor of Egypt’s semiofficial Al Ahram newspaper and government minister under Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser, two individuals who inspired little confidence.

Shaheen began his presentation by recounting how, in 1974, his children told him about “bad Arabs on television,” prompting him to study Arabs and Muslims in popular entertainment.  For his interest in this subject, Shaheen claimed he was “tagged the Arab professor” and had his research dismissed as “not academic; it’s propaganda.” A Rockford Files producer, meanwhile, allegedly rejected his interview request with the statement, “I hate Arabs.”

Hollywood prejudice has now “spread its wings” from Arab Muslims to Muslims in general. Shaheen claimed, noting in a subsequent article on the event that “Islamophobia [has] joined Arabophobia.”  He objected to headlines involving “Islamist extremists” in stories where Islam is not a factor, although he neglected to provide any examples. He did concede that, when pertinent, religion “should be part of the story.”

Shaheen alleged that “people who have a political agenda” play a significant role in creating such stereotypes, while entertainment involving an “Israeli connection” is “pervasive.” Eight seasons of the television crime show NCIS, he noted, featured American intelligence cooperation with an Israeli Mossad agent, not with a Palestinian or Yemeni agent. Yet despite CIA cooperation with Palestinian and Yemeni agents, American ties with Israel are clearly much stronger and mention of them in a TV show involving spies simply reflects reality. Vaguely referenced “friends of Israel” in the media are “much more influential, powerful,” than their opponents, Ghareeb added conspiratorially.

After the event, this reporter asked whether there was an analogy with consistently negative portrayals of Germans, given their authoritarian and aggressive past.  Shaheen called this a “totally different issue.”  He then reiterated his 2002 Nightline comments that Americans “were at war with a country” in the World Wars and not with Islam’s supposedly “lunatic fringe, al-Qaeda.”  Yet decades-long conflict with various Islamic terrorist organizations and dictatorial regimes is hardly a “fringe” phenomenon.

Undeniably, Hollywood’s dream factory and the media can stand more realism, but Shaheen and Ghareeb’s often cartoonish views condemning a supposed pro-Israel political agenda offer little benefit.   Substantial evidence of anti-Israel media bias, however, does exist, and despite Ghareeb and Shaheen’s dubious sources and wishful thinking, art does, in fact, imitate life when it depicts violence among Arabs and other Muslims. Ignoring these facts in deference to the professors’ fantasies would be the real fiction.

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project; follow him on twitter at @AEHarrod. He wrote this essay for Campus Watch, a project of theMiddle East Forum.

The Newburgh Deception: HBO Documentary Whitewashes American Jihad Plot

 

By Andrew E. Harrod:

The Newburgh Sting will air Monday, July 21 on HBO.  This documentary concerns a 2009 FBI undercover operation against terrorist attacks upon New York area targets.  Viewers beware, though; this film ignores copious evidence of jihadist motivation in a tale of deprived individuals entrapped by zealous officials that discredits effective tactics against terror.

The documentary analyzes how four American Muslims undertook what they thought would be attacks against two Bronx synagogues and American military transport planes in a May 20, 2009 FBI sting.  The operation begins with FBI informant Shahed Hussain visiting Newburgh, New York’s Masjid Al-Ikhlas mosque undercover, where the apparently wealthy Hussain raised suspicions with persistent inquiries into jihad.  “Everybody here is straight,” however, so Al-Ikhlas imam Salahuddin Muhammad remained unconcerned.

Yet the film recounts how Hussain encountered in Al-Ikhlas’s parking lot, on June 13, 2008, James Cromitie, as described by court records, where his Muslim name, Abdul Rehman, also appears.  In the film, Cromitie falls prey not to talk of jihad, but rather to Hussain’s offer of $250,000, according to former FBI agent and ACLU policy analyst Mike German.  “They’re doing it for the money,” Cromitie likewise says on a surveillance tape in the film about the three plotters he recruits.  David Williams (“AKA DAOUD” in official documents), for example, liked “weed and women,” according to his aunt.  He merely became a “jailhouse Muslim” in order to avoid prison gangs and wanted money for his mother’s liver transplant operation.

These four plotters “certainly were not terrorists,” German judges, but ran afoul of FBI entrapment.  The “rules don’t apply anymore” at an FBI that after September 11, 2001, views the “entire Muslim community as suspect,” German criticizes.  “Some bad actors in every community” can appear, concurs Representative Keith Ellison, when authorities “channel a vast amount of law enforcement resources.”  Muslims are now merely the “new thing” after Communists in the 1950s and gang members in the 1990s.

Yet “Islam literally means peace,” Al-Ikhlas assistant imam Hamin Rashada says.  The “most beautiful thing that has ever come off the tongue” is the Koran, he adds, breaking into tears, to which terrorists are “only giving lip service.”  Zero American mosques have had terrorism links, Nihad Awad, from the unindicted terrorism financing co-conspirator Council on American-Islamic Relations, also assures.

Treating Muslims as “partners or as suspects” in law enforcement is the choice Salam al-Marayati from the equally radical Muslim Public Affairs Council outlines for authorities.  Marayati wanted “to push out surveillance as a law enforcement tactic…with effective partnership programs” at a June 2014 presentation of The Newburgh Sting.

Brief references to jihadist ideology appear in the documentary.  The Bronx synagogues are “good…excellent” targets for Cromitie because “I hate those…f—ing Jewish bastards.”  “This is jihad,” Hussain in turn stresses to Cromitie, and not just a matter of money.

Court records, however, give a far fuller account of why the four plotters’ entrapment defense failed both at trial and on appeal.  Cromitie wanted “to do something to America…to die like a shahid, a martyr” and “go to paradise,” he declared to Hussain after initiating contact with him on June 13, 2008.  “In all his prior encounters as an informant,” Hussain “had never heard anything like that before,” the prosecutor’s brief to the appeals court observed.

Read more at American Thinker

Also see:

‘Muslim Mafia’ author: Muslims working with Facebook to silence critics of Islam

135d74c68d744c0a8ba9abf757e3a456The Examiner, By Joe Newby:

On Wednesday, Dave Gaubatz, a former Air Force investigator and author of “Muslim Mafia,” told Examiner.com that he “infiltrated” a Muslim conference held in Detroit earlier this month. While at the conference, he reportedly spoke to a representative of a group known as Muslim Advocates, who said the organization is working “closely” with social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to close down accounts of users critical of Islam.

“They are asking these groups to close the accounts of anyone who is critical of Islam,” he said. “This is considered serious hate speech and should not be allowed on the Internet.”

According to Gaubatz, the representative also said that “anyone critical of Islam and sharia law are haters.” Ditto for those who oppose either the construction or expansion of a mosque in the United States.

“We are experts with deep experience in the courtroom and powerful connections in Congress and the White House,” Gaubatz recalled being told by the Muslim Advocates representative.

“This should be of no surprise to anyone,” Gaubatz said.

Gaubatz also said the conference, which was attended by representatives and leaders from several groups, should have been named the “U.S. Constitution and the 1st Amendment are for MB terrorists and not for American Patriots.” For four days, he said, he stayed at the same hotel as leaders from over a dozen groups that support the Muslim Brotherhood.

He reportedly met and spoke with executives from the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust.

“I was informed that NAIT owned several hundred million dollars of property in America, and has the funding from 400 plus Islamic Centers in America,” he added.

But Gaubatz’ report of collusion between these groups and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter present a clear danger to the fundamental right of free speech and Americans’ ability to freely express themselves online. As we have reported multiple times, Muslim activists have called for global blasphemy bans and an end to free speech in the United States, despite the clear language of the First Amendment.

Last Wednesday, we reported that one page critical of Islam — “Islam Exposed” — was yanked by Facebook after administrators received death threats. Facebook later restored the page, saying it was yanked in error.

On Wednesday, a post at the page advising visitors to avoid hateful speech was removed by Facebook for allegedly violating the site’s community standards. Facebook did not explain why the post was pulled and one administrator received a 30-day ban.

But as we have reported, Facebook routinely turns a blind eye to threats from users with Muslim-sounding names. Last August, for example, Facebook told a conservative female they could not confirm direct threats she received violated their community standards. One threat reported to Facebook was quite specific: “We will kill you.”

Ironically, Facebook has said it supports free speech and reviews all complaints equally.

We contacted both Facebook and Muslim Advocates to verify Gaubatz’ claim and received no reply as of this writing.

Update: A few hours after this article was published, Facebook falsely flagged the link as “unsafe” in what appears to be a bid to keep it from being circulated. We have reached out to Facebook, but have not received a response.

Update #2: Muslim Advocates spokesperson Fatima Khan responded with an email claiming we misquoted their representative, even though we did not. The statement relayed to us was Gaubatz’s recollection, not a direct quote from MA or any of their representatives. We specifically asked Khan about the quote, and about allegations the group is working to shut down social media accounts of those critical of Islam. Khan never responded. The article was flagged by Facebook after our contact with Khan. More on the incident can be seen here.

Also see: