Crusade: Rep Peter T. King's Jihad

Hearings on radicalization within the Muslim-American Community

Today, June 20, 2012, Rep Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, convened the fifth in a series of hearings on radicalization within the Muslim-American Community.

Of course, only witnesses who support Mr. King's conclusions, or who were not likely to offer unpleasant facts, were selected. Those who could offer critical facts not supportive of Mr. King's conclusions were again excluded.

Mr. King, if you truly want to protect Americans, . . .

The 9/11 trial excludes hard facts

2000+ military, intelligence, industry professionals do not believe the official account of 9/11. KSM couldn't possibly have masterminded 9/11. He was water-boarded 183 times. After that he would have been willing to say anything to stop the torture.

Update on CLEAR Internet service: excellent to painfully slow

Back in June 2010 we reported on CLEAR's Internet service. For the most part it was excellent, and reasonably priced. It's still reasonably priced, but it now ranges from excellent to painfully slow.

With download speeds often below one MB/sec, it's impossible to watch Netflix like CLEAR's banners proclaimed in June 2010.

Iran: UN Security Council Resolution 1696 is 'of dubious legality'

Arms Control Association Director Daryl Kimball said in a telephone interview from Vienna. “Getting serious means focusing on the near-term problem that 20 percent enriched uranium represents,” which drives the “hysterical war talk in some quarters.”—IAEA Iran Visit May Offer End to War Talk Over Nuclear Work

Security Council Resolution 1696 is of 'dubious legality'. The IAEA's Iran file should never have been presented to the UN Security Council.

At the end of July 2006, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1696 made enrichment suspension mandatory under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which empowers the Security Council to act in the face of "threat to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of agression.'

In "The Age of Deception" (p199), IAEA Director General ElBaradei writes that the resolution was of dubious legality. There was still no proof that Iran's nuclear activity involved a weapons program. It was quite a stretch to say that a small laboratory-scale centrifuge-cascade constituted "a threat to international peace and security" when peaceful uranium enrichment is legal for all member states under the NPT.

Aayan Hirsi Ali, Boko Haram is not the problem

Ted Olson's key role in constructing the official account of 9/11

In a front page article on September 12, 2001 — On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked' — Marc Fisher and Don Phillips of the Washington Post reported that Barbara K. Olson called her husband twice in the final minutes before the crash of Flight 77. The FBI contradicts this account.

FBI exhibit (P200054) from the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui contradicts the Solicitor General's account. It shows that Barbara Olson made only one phone call — it did not connect, and it lasted for 0 seconds.

Ted Olson is one of the lead lawyers in the fight to get the 9th Circuit to deem California’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

On Syria: more junk journalism

Bob Taylor, a retired British journalist based in Brussels, contributed the following to an ongoing informal exchange of thoughts among former colleagues and friends.

Whatever one’s judgment of events in Syria, I am dismayed (yet again) at the uncritical way the western media have bought into the official Washington/London/Paris narrative. The media clearly don’t want to learn the lessons of Kosovo or Iraq. Once more, absolute good takes on absolute evil. Where are the shades of grey in the reporting? where is the background? Where the context?

Why burden readers and viewers with this baggage when the outcome of each warlet is a foregone conclusion? For make no mistake. The western endgame in Syria is regime change and the ousting of Bashar al-Assad who is as soiled goods as Milosevic and Saddam ever were. Even more so in the case of Syria, the media have become wittingly or unwittingly a frontline weapon in the hands of western governments to keep up 11 months of virtually daily international pressure on the embattled Damascus regime.

Our simplistic ‘humanitarian wars’ have so far achieved simplistic results. Albanian primitives replace Serb primitives in Kosovo. Shia primitives (plus Kurdish renegades) replace Sunni primitives in Iraq. Are these exemplars of the manly democracy we set out to impose by righteous force? Is this what we went to war for, with its vast cost in civilian and military deaths? Where is the value-added from the billions of taxpayers’ dollars in terms of decency, tolerance and social justice for all the citizens of these countries?

Bashar al-Assad’s regime is harsh and repressive in many respects. To blame the revolt on outside forces, as it does, is a classic exercise in self-deception and scape-goating.

But to deny or ignore the self-interested and largely negative interference of outsiders as the western media does is either willfully misleading or based on naivety or stupidity. Syria represents what is left of structured Arab opposition to Israel. It is a channel of support for Hezbollah and Hamas. It is an acolyte of the evil Iranians. For years, Israel has been trying to destabilise the Syrian regime and infiltrate its political and civil organs. For Israel (and the US) to stand on the touchline with arms folded until internal events in Syria play themselves out would require a degree of forbearance that is quite out of character for both governments. This is what our media would have us believe.

Israel is the elephant in the Syrian room. The western media rarely mention it. Yet it is the big winner in the event of a diminished Syria. If I were in charge of Israeli intelligence, I would be making trouble for Bashar like there was no tomorrow. You can be sure that those really in charge are working overtime. I have looked in vain for adequate press coverage of this aspect of the unfolding Syrian drama in the last 11 months. This is left to outsiders whose voices are drowned in the tidal wave of self-righteous outpourings from the mainstream media in favour of western and Israeli outcomes.

In my view, these outcomes are not (yet?) a foregone conclusion in the case of Syria. To make them so will require a more visible and muscular interference by the US and Israel (and/or their surrogates). The sham of a home-grown revolution removing Gaddafi was quickly exposed.

The outcome for Syria could well be the ascendency of the Muslim Brothers and the Sunni over Bashar and his Alawites (one more set of primitives replacing another set) – with what impact on Syria’s secularism and the co-existence between Sunnis and Alawites, Christians, Druze and Kurds? From a cynical western standpoint, if Syria is reduced in the process to a bit player in the middle east, who cares? But we’re not there yet.

Syria: Lizzie Phelan on Press TV

New York Times interview with Lizzie Phelan on Syria and Libya

Earlier today I was video interviewed over Skype by New York Times journalist Robert Mackey about my coverage of events in Libya and Syria and my criticisms of the mainstream western and GCC media in relation to events in those countries.

This was my first interview by a mainstream western media organisation and I have been told that the video will be published in full tomorrow.

Prior to the interview I was sent three questions outlining the general topics that would be covered in the interview. In some ways the interview veered away from these topics and so here I will publish the questions that were outlined prior to the interview and publish my full answers to them, just because I feel like it is important that full responses are given to these questions in particular, and while I made most of these points in the interview, there are some points that I omitted.

ROBERT MACKEY: Since your impressions of what is happening in Syria seem to be strikingly different from those of many foreign reporters who have worked there recently, I wanted to ask you about how you found your sources and what you think accounts for the different picture painted of the conflict by other journalists.

LIZZIE PHELAN: First of all I hope that you will give me the opportunity to answer all of your questions in full, so that the context which is always lacking can be provided. I also hope that you will ask all the questions that you proposed when I agreed to do this interview. If not I will myself publish the full questions and my full answers.

This question is flawed, because what you really mean is that my impressions of what is happening in Syria seem to be strikingly different from those reporters from the NATO and GCC countries which have a vested interest in destabilising Syria. Of course my impressions are actually shared by the majority people of this world, from those countries outside of NATO and the GCC and particularly those which are victims of these powers. But because they do not own a powerful media their voices are drowned out by the impressions of the minority reflected in the mainstream media of the NATO and GCC countries.

So in relation to my sources, I find my sources through a number of different means, but my main means is I talk to ordinary people every where I go and in Syria this is not difficult because people are really keen to speak about the crisis in their country, especially to foreigners who they feel strongly have a false impression about their country and current events. This was overwhelmingly, but of course not exclusively, the point of view that I encountered. And this is reflected in my reporting.

In fact, like in Libya, I was so overwhelmed by the volume of people that wanted to talk about their anger at the fabrications in the media of the NATO and GCC countries that my colleague Mostafa Afzalzadeh and I decided to make a documentary so that we could reflect what ordinary Syrian people are really saying. This documentary will actually expose how if it was not for such media the crisis in Syria would have been over before it started and the people of Syria would be living in peace now.

The difference with journalists from mainstream media in NATO and GCC countries is that they come with an agenda, and that agenda is to cover what they call is a “revolution” happening inside Syria and to give substance to the false claims that the Syrian government is a threat to the Syrian people. So if for example they walk down the street and they have 10 people telling them there is no revolution happening in Syria and actually the people want the army to protect them from the terrorists that are flooding the country, and then they have one person who tells them that there is no democracy in Syria, they will discard the 10 as government spies and run with the one person who said something different, I witnessed this myself.

If they were to do the reverse and reflect the majority view on the street, then this would undermine the coverage of their media organisations over the previous 10 months that have painted a picture of a government hated by its people, and in turn it would undermine their own credibility as journalists working for those organisations.

But in time they will not be able to supress the truth. However, like in Libya the danger is that the truth only comes out when it is too late, when a country has been successfully destroyed by the NATO and GCC countries, with the vital help of their media. Then the western media can afford to be more honest, although never entirely, because the aims, for example of regime change, of their paymasters have been achieved.

I on the other hand am not concerned about towing a line in order to “make it” as a journalist working for one of the world’s most respected media organisations, I became a journalist in order to reflect the truth at whatever cost that may come. The only thing I am loyal to is my conscience.

RM: Since you have appeared on Press TV and Russia Today, as well as Syria state television, do you have any concern that you might seem to be endorsing the governments that finance those channels, or do you see your role more as that of an activist, opposing the policies of the US and UK, than as a neutral reporter?

LP: This question in itself is a very deceitful and loaded question, and it is taken out of all context. It implies that BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera etc and the journalists who work for those organisations are independent from their financiers. If I worked for BBC does that mean that I am endorsing the British government which funds it and that government’s centuries long and present abuses across the world?

Why is the NYT concerned about my work for Russia Today and Press TV? I challenge you to find me specific examples of journalists that work for these organisations that have engaged in bad journalistic practise. Why are you not concerned about journalists who work for Al Jazeera that is funded by and reflects the foreign policy of the Qatari emir and royal family. Al Jazeera has been proven many times over in the past few months to have published false reports about events in the region, not least Libya.

How can their journalists be neutral when their employer hosts the largest US military base in the region, and has been responsible for sending thousands of fighters, weapons and a lot of money to kill and destroy in Libya and is now doing the same in Syria in addition to having called for Arab troops to invade the country. Likewise, I have yet to hear the NYT question the “neutrality” of journalists who work with the British state funded BBC, or journalists who work for the Murdoch Press which is well documented to have strong connections with all the major western powers which are responsible for the greatest violations of international law.

So the question should start from the premise that no news organisations are neutral, and each represent a certain ideology. So if you ask me if I feel more at peace working for news channels which reflect the ideology of states that are defending themselves from constant attack by the west, that is an ideology that opposes foreign interference in their affairs and promotes their own independence, or would I feel more comfortable working for media organisations that reflect the arrogant ideology that western civilisation is superior and should be imposed across the world by any means necessary, then I think any person with the slightest understanding of global politics and at least recent history would say the former.

An additional deception in this question is that there is such a thing as neutrality and that journalists are able to separate their own beliefs in what they choose to cover and how they cover it, or indeed the pretence that journalists do not hold an opinion.

As I said, I am not concerned about others perceptions of these things, because anyone who perceives that because I have worked for Russia Today or Press TV it means that I am in someone’s pocket, whereas if I was working for a western organisation I would be “neutral,” is deceiving themselves and choosing to look at a tiny portion of a whole picture.

Incidentally, when I was stuck in the Rixos Hotel in Tripoli with those 35 other journalists, one of the days, two American journalists rushed into the hotel and swiftly exited when they realised that the hotel was being defended by Gaddafi supporters. Actually one of the two in particular was worried about the Gaddafi supporters harming him, but they requested that they just leave. Why was he so worried? Because he said he was related to somebody senior in the NTC no less. I have never seen his neutrality being called into question by the mainstream media.

Finally, what is an activist? If it means that the role you play has the effect of agitating events, then I would say that we are all in some shape or form activists. For anyone to think that their actions are benign and have no repercussions, is at best naïve. This is particularly true for all journalists, whose actions as reporters have greater repercussions than other ordinary citizens of this world. And this is of course because their voice is afforded a special platform, and when you study journalism you are taught that a reporter should act as the eyes and ears of the general public, and thus you have greater influence than the ordinary citizen.

So you either use that platform to promote justice and the principles of international law which are fundamental for everyone's well being, or you bury your head in the sand about the responsibility that comes with that platform and you use it to promote your own personal career or interests.

RM: I also wanted to find out more about your reporting from Libya, and ask how you respond to allegations that you supported the government of Col. Qaddafi? All in all, I'm trying to get a better understanding of what drives you to speak out against Western governments but apparently lend your support to governments, like those in Iran, Russia and Syria now, that have been accused of serious human rights abuses.

LP: Again this is another deceitful question and epitomises the manipulative approach of the world’s powerful media, such as newspapers like the NYT.

Here you are asking me this question because the west’s major powers and media criminalised Muammar Gaddafi, Iran etc by accusing them of abusing human rights.

So you are trying to put me into this trap by saying that if I support Muammar Gaddafi, and Iran I also support abuses against human rights.

But first of all this question of human rights is an absolute fallacy and is at present the number one stick used to bash leaders of independent developing countries in order to provide a moral justification for the imposition of the western system upon those countries.

My colleague Dan Glazebrook did an interview on Russia Today last week following the decision by Doctors Without Borders to stop their work in Libya in despair at the appalling torture against tens of thousands of pro-Gaddafi Libyans by those rebels who have been cheered on for the past year by the western media. He reminded the public that according to HRW reports from the past 5 years, there were three possible cases of deaths in custody in Libya over 5 years, which is really exemplary, but in Britain there were 4 cases last month alone. So I would be far more concerned about being associated with the British government and thus its appalling human rights record. And that is just Britain - the rest of the NATO countries, particularly the US and also Israel and the GCC countries fare no better.

Factually speaking Libya was a paradise for human rights and Muammar Gaddafi was due to receive a human rights award prior to the NATO onslaught. And of course Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and much of the region, including a much higher standard of living than Saudi Arabia which hardly ever is in the spotlight in the mainstream western press.

Nonetheless, you wouldn’t dream of implying that a journalist who works for the Sun or the Guardian in Britain, both of which take a position of supporting one way or another the Conservative party or the Labour Party, of supporting abuses on human rights because they work for papers which support parties that have committed some of the greatest injustices known to man throughout history all across the world and up until this present day. Injustices which far outstrip any injustices that have occurred at the hands of any leader of a developing country.

So why the two-faces? This is all part of the prejudice in western media that western civilisation is superior to anything else and therefore those responsible for the injustices committed by the west need not be held accountable, and anyone who speaks out against that should have their name dragged through the mud.

Malcolm X famously said “if you are not careful, the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the oppressor”, and that quote rings true more than ever today most recently in the way that the western and GCC media has covered events in Libya and Syria.

But to respond to your question directly, as I have stated, what I support is respect for international law, and the most important principle in international law, and one of the main stated aims for the body that was set up to uphold international law, the now redundant UN, is respect for the sovereignty of nations and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Recent history shows that the root of the greatest injustices known to man is the violation of these principles and so anyone who violates these principles is a criminal and should be treated as such, and anyone who is a victim of such violations should be defended.

Now not only these principles, but all relevant international laws and norms were violated in the case of Libya and the west’s treatment of Muammar Gaddafi, and this has been well documented. The same violations are playing out against the Syrian government.

How is it that one can moralise about human rights, but not give a second’s thought to the fact that a senior member of the US government, Hilary Clinton called for the death of another head of state, Muammar Gaddafi, just two days before he was assassinated. I hope I don’t need to tell you that that was entirely illegal and abhorrent.

I am wholly against such violations, just as anybody who believes in international law and justice would be, and therefore I will support the right of anyone to defend themselves against this violation by any means necessary.

I have been accused by some of being a mouthpiece for the Libyan government but now the truth is coming out, we know that the essence of the former Libyan government's analysis has been proved correct, whilst almost everything reported by the mainstream Western media has been proved wrong:

- The rebellion WAS indeed armed from the very first day of the uprising (this was confirmed in Amnesty's in-depth report from late last year) - not a peaceful movement

- The rebels WERE working hand in glove with Western intelligence agencies to facilitate a NATO blitzkrieg

- The NTC ARE disunited and incapable of governing the country.

- The rebels DO have a racist, even genocidal, policy towards sub-Saharan African migrants and the third of the Libyan population is dark skinned

- Gaddafi's government WERE NOT conducting aerial attacks against protesters or mass rape (or indeed ANY rape, according to Amnesty)

- There HAD NOT been 10,000 people killed in Benghazi by Gaddafi's government during the uprising (as the NTC claimed), but 110 (Amnesty figures again) killed on both sides prior to NATO's attack

On every major issue, the Gaddafi government's analysis and figures have been proven far far closer to the truth than the NTC's and the western media’s initial and unequivocal position. So ANY journalist telling the truth about these issues would have "sounded like a mouthpiece of the regime", because the government's analysis was essentially correct, and has now been proven correct.

Nonprofit corporation proposes 'White List' to halt unlawful blacklisting

The Wisdom Fund, a Virginia based nonprofit corporation, has proposed the following rules to counter Internet blacklists that stifle free speech.

1 - Establish a "White List" for nonprofit corporations.

2 - Require Internet Service Providers to forward mail from those on "White List" to its intended recipients without hindrance.

3 - Penalties and lawyer fees for noncompliance.

Lior Leser, an attorney whose "practice focuses on helping companies build solid Web 2.0 Legal platforms", advised The Wisdom Fund that blacklists are "shutting down free speech."

Multiple "White Lists" exist, but they're not used widely, it's not clear how one gets on them, and there are no penalties to ISPs for not using them.

Nonprofit corporation’s email server blacklisted by barracudanetworks.com

ACLU of Virginia
530 East Main Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23219


REQUEST FOR CASE REVIEW: STIFLING FREE SPEECH ON INTERNET
Nonprofit corporation’s email server blacklisted by barracudanetworks.com

On December 5, 2011, The Wisdom Fund (TWF.ORG) was informed by Heller Information Services, Inc. (HIS.COM — our Internet Service Provider since 1995) that our email server had been blacklisted by Barracuda Networks, Inc. (BARRACUDANETWORKS.COM).

This had the effect of limiting our email to the 3000+ regular readers of our news reports, and dozens of others with whom we communicate on as needed basis.

We believe this is a free speech issue affecting all nonprofits, the facts are not in dispute.

The Wisdom Fund is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) corporation registered in the Commonwealth of Virginia, employee identification number 54-1755689.

We have several email lists ranging from less than 100 to about 3000. On average, we send less than one email daily to 3000 recipients. This list was developed over the past 15 years. Other, smaller, more recent lists, are utiltized to communicate on specific issues with others.

All of our mailings include an unsubscribe link, and unsubscribes are handled by a third party — ethreesoftware.com, whose software we use to send bulk email. The process is automated — subscribes and unsubscribes are controlled by ethreesoftware.com.

Prior to July 29, 2011, we used different software, Intellimerge, for bulk email and to handle unsubscribes. This process was only partially automated, hence the move to ethreesoftware.com.

Our reading of PUBLIC LAW 108-187--DEC. 16, 2003 is that we are exempt from this Act — the Act applies to the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet. Our mail is non-commercial, nevertheless, we attempt to utilize the best practices of the Act.

The blacklisting by barracudanetworks.com is stifling our right to free speech, and seriously impacting the operation of The Wisdom Fund.

We have had no response from Barracuda Networks’ agent, Dean Drako, to our letter of December 9, 2011 — sent Certified Mail, Return Receipt.

This is the latest in our continuing battle to keep our emails reaching our readers. Paul Heller of Heller Information Servicess and I have devoted considerable effort over the past few years to get email past Yahoo, Google, and other gatekeepers.

The issue may come under the jusrisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission which has been reviewing “net neutrality” issues. However, the courts may be better equipped to handle free speech issues.

We request your help. Relevant documents are attached.

Enver Masud
President, The Wisdom Fund

The Wisdom Fund wrongly accused of SPAM, suspends mailings

We've been accused of spam, blacklisted by Barracuda, and have suspended mailings to our list members. For all we know, accusations of spam may be coming from those who want to shut us down.

The Wisdom Fund is a registered nonprofit corporation (EIN # 54-1755689) established in 1995. Our email is non-commercial. The SPAM Act does not apply to our mail.

Nevertheless, we attempt to follow the Act. Our mailing list was developed over 15 years using a variety of methods. Lately, we moved to Direct Mail, all Subscribe and Unscubscribe requests are handled by http://ethreesoftware.com, and in the last few months we've been placing the Unsubscribe link prominently at the top of our mail — we used to place it at the bottom.

There's a guide to the FCC rules at http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business. The actual text of the Act is at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723041/canspam.pdf.

However, while the Act applies to senders, Internet Service Providers are apparently exempt from it, and they do not differentiate between commercial mail and non-commercial mail. They blacklist non-commercial mailers using the same rules they use for commercial mailers.

Anyone on our mailing list can complain they've received SPAM, and ISP's may blacklist any account based upon mere accusations — just three in one year may be enough. Apparently, there's no law that prevents ISPs from blacklisting anyone.

The sender is guilty unless proven innocent.

Proving yourself innocent can be a very lengthly process. Over the years, we've had to fight this battle with Yahoo and others http://twforg.blogspot.com/2010/06/net-neutrality-our-experience-with.html.

It's very time consuming, and unless one has an ISP battling with you, it may be a losing battle.

Our ISP since 1995, Heller Information Services, has been very accommodating, but there's a limit to the time and expense they will incur on our behalf.

One begins to wonder if the U.S. is any different from those authoritarian regimes we accuse of censorship.

Enver Masud

Founder and CEO
The Wisdom Fund
TWF.org

Report: The $16 trillion bailout

Senator Sanders: "As a result of these GAO reports, we learned that the Federal Reserve provided a jaw-dropping $16 trillion in total financial assistance to every major financial institution in the country as well as a number of corporations, wealthy individuals and central banks throughout the world."

In a nutshell: sharia or Islamic law

The definition of justice, according to Dr. Robert D. Crane, founder of the Center for Civilizational Renewal, is respect for human rights, which were formulated six centuries ago by Islamic scholars.

These rights, says Dr. Crane, are: "the right to life and personal integrity (haqq al haya), to family and community existence and cohesion at all levels of human society (haqq al nasi), to equal opportunities in accessing ownership of the means of economic production (haqq al mal), to political freedom for self-determination both within and among nations (haqq al hurriyah), to human dignity (haqq al karama, including freedom of religion and gender equity), and to education, knowledge, and freedom of expression (haqq al ilm)."

Regarding separation of Church and State, according to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, author of Islam, a Sacred Law, Islamic jurists recognized this concept centuries before the Europeans, and divided the body of Shariah rules into two categories: religious observances and worldly matters. The first they observed to be beyond the scope of modification. The second, subject to interpretation, cover the following:

1. Criminal Law: This includes crimes such as murder, larceny, fornication, drinking alcohol, libel.

2. Family Law: This . . . covers marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, inheritance.

3. Transactions: This covers property rights, contracts, rules of sale, hire, gift, loans and debts, deposits, partnerships, and damages.

"One of the most sensible definitions of the purposes of the Shariah," according to Imam Feisal, was given by Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah who said:

"The foundation of the Shariah is wisdom and the safeguarding of people's interests in this world and the next. In its entirety it is justice, mercy and wisdom. Every rule which transcends justice to tyranny, mercy to its opposite, the good to the evil, and wisdom to triviality does not belong to the Shariah . . ."

According to Imam Feisal the sources of Shariah are, in order:

1. The Quran - God's Word revealed to Prophet Muhammad.

2. The Sunnah - practice and teachings of the Prophet.

3. Ijma - consensus of those in authority.

4. Qiyas - reason, logic, and opinion based upon analogy.

Imam Feisal describes seven other methods for deriving Islamic laws. These seven, plus ijma and qiyas, are collectively known as ijtihad or interpretation, and/or opinion based upon reason and logic.

Several schools of Shariah have evolved: Shafii, Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki - the orthodox schools, and Jafari - the Shiite school. The Zaydis and Ibadis also have their own schools.

"Classical international law, reputedly invented by the Spaniards Vittorio and Suarez, borrowed the concept of inalienable human rights from Islamic law," according to Dr. Crane.

If it's wisely implemented, shariah may better nurture and protect society than does Western law which is subject to the whims of lawmakers.

Enver Masud
Founder and CEO
The Wisdom Fund

Report: Norway oil interests push Kenya into Somalia proxy war

Fact Check: IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) "aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states while ensuring fair access to peaceful nuclear technology under international safeguards (audits and inspections).

"There are two categories of parties to the treaty -- nuclear weapon states (NWS) and non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). Under the treaty, NWS are defined as the five states that exploded a nuclear device before January 1, 1967 (United States, Soviet Union [now Russia], United Kingdom, France, and China)." Iran is a non-nuclear weapon state.

The following examines the November, 8, 2011, IAEA report, "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," with respect to specific provisions of the NPT. . . .

With 30,000 dead, what do faith leaders and human rights activists who pushed for war on Libya say now?

The end of Zein al-Abidine Ben Ali's rule in Tunisia's "Jasmine Revolution" on January 14, 2011 rang alarm bells across the Middle East. The U.S. seized the opportunity to put an end to Col. Gaddafi's rule in Libya -- with the help of hundreds of U.S. faith leaders, human rights activists, neocons, and the news media.

On March 14, 2011, in a letter signed by faith leaders and hundreds of others (see letter for names, affiliation), The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, appealed to President Obama "to create a coalition that will impose as quickly as possible a no-fly zone for all Libyan military aircraft over the full extent of northern Libyan airspace".

Surely, these faith leaders knew that a no-fly zone is a euphemism for war.

"On 17 March, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973. And within 42 hours an attack on the troops of the Libyan government, aimed, according to the British Defence Minster William Hague, at killing the Libyan leader, had begun."

Resolution 1973 was illegal under the UN Charter. The Libyan government did not have a representative present at the meeting at which the UN resolution was passed. There was no determination made that measures not involving the use of force had failed.

The attack on Libya was not a Just War as described both by Catholic doctrine, and in an analysis by the Christian Evangel Society. Similar restrictions on war exist in Islam.

On June 20, 2011, a letter signed by 40 former senior officials who served under President George W. Bush was released by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) -- a two-year-old neoconservative group that is widely seen as the successor to the more-famous -- or infamous -- Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The FPI urged Congress: "The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies."

US/NATO intervention exceeded the parameters originally set forth by UN Security Council resolution 1973, which authorized the international use of force to establish a "no fly" zone over Libya and to protect civilians; the UN resolution made no mention of regime change or government overthrow, though this clearly was NATO's main objective from the beginning. The Security Council also called for a Libyan arms embargo, a stipulation that NATO ignored by arming the Libyan rebels.

On September 16, 2011, the National Transitional Council was recognised by the United Nations as the legal representative of Libya, replacing Gaddafi's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

On October 20, 2011, with US/NATO and Qatari forces siding with the rebels in a civil war (now you know why Al Jazeera's coverage was one-sided), Col. Gaddafi was captured alive after his convoy was attacked by NATO warplanes. He was beaten and killed by the rebels the same day.

When his convoy was attacked, according to reports, Gaddafi was traveling under a negotiated truce, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was informed of the "White Flag" truce negotiated and agreed to by Libya's NTC while visiting Libya on Wednesday October 19.

The National Transitional Council puts Libyan losses at 30,000 dead (given Libya's population of 6.42 million, this is the U.S. equivalent of 1.4 million dead) and 50,000 wounded", and much of what was said to justify the war -- genocide... Gaddafi is "bombing his own people"... save Benghazi... African mercenaries... viagra-fueled mass rape -- has proven to be a lie.

Gaddafi seized power in 1969 in a bloodless coup by overthrowing King Idris who had achieved power with British backing in 1949. After trying for more than 20 years, US/NATO led forces finally got rid of him.

Amnesty International has called for an independent inquiry into the alleged, 1996 massacre of 1270 prisoners in Abu Salim prison -- an estimate mostly based on the account of a single former inmate (Hussein al-Shafai -- now "living in the United States, where he has applied for asylum").

Investigators from CNN and other organizations found no evidence of mass graves at the supposed site -- only some animal bones.

When they pushed for war, faith leaders and the news media, did not report that Libya ranked first in Africa (53 globally) on the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) Human Development Index -- ahead of Saudi Arabia at 55, Iran at 70, South Africa at 73, Jordan at 82, Egypt at 101, Indonesia at 108, India at 119, Afghanistan at 155. They also did not report that according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa".

In a just world, the warmongers would be held accountable for their criminal attack on Libya and the killing of Col Gaddafi. Instead the rush is on to strip Libyans of their wealth.

What do faith leaders and human rights activists who pushed for war on Libya say now?

Enver Masud
Founder and CEO
The Wisdom Fund

REPRINT PERMISSION GRANTED

Rate your news media on their coverage of the US/NATO backed civil war in Libya

Rate your news media on a scale of 1 to 10. Assign 2 points for each of the five facts below that you previously knew (1 point for partial knowledge). The resulting total is an indication of how well your news media covered the US/NATO backed civil war in Libya.

Libya Ranks #1 on the Human Development Index: According to the United Nations Development Programme, Libya ranked first in Africa (53 globally) on the Human Development Index -- ahead of Saudi Arabia at 55, Iran at 70, South Africa at 73, Jordan at 82, Egypt at 101, Indonesia at 108, India at 119, Afghanistan at 155.

It is reported that Libyans receive free housing, education, health care, substantial cash when they marry, and overseas education if they qualify.

Largest Oil Reserves in Africa: According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa".

Program to Privatize Oil: On February 21, 2011, five days after the Arab Spring broke out in Libya, Qaddafi launched a new program to privatize all Libyan oil to every citizen of Libya, initially providing $21,000 to every Libyan from a total of $32,000,000,000 in the Year 2011, so that the health, education, transport, and some other ministries could be abolished and individual Libyans could use the profits of their own investments, including from oil ownership, to obtain the relevant services.

This, Gaddafi said, is the best way to eliminate corruption, including the theft of Libyan oil by foreign oil companies, and to decentralize governmental power.

Great Man-Made River Project: The Great Man-Made River Project, begun in 1984 by Col. Gaddafi, has been called the 8th Wonder of the World. It supplies fresh water to the cities of Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte and elsewhere.

The U.S. threatened to nuke this "chemical weapons factory". Foreign companies covet the fresh water.

Gaddafi Seized Power in Bloodless Coup: Muammar Gaddafi, aka Col. Gaddafi, seized power in 1969 in a bloodless coup by overthrowing King Idris of Libya -- Idris achieved power with British backing in 1949.

Links to sources at The Wisdom Fund — http://www.taf.org/News/Y2011/1024-Gaddafi.html

Five things you may not know about Muammar Gaddafi

"Libyans awake from a ludicrous nightmare: Gaddafi achieved nothing in his 42-year rule," David Gardner wrote yesterday in the Financial Times. Others have expressed similar sentiments. Here are the facts:

Libya Ranks #1 on the Human Development Index: According to the United Nations Development Programme, Libya ranked first in Africa (53 globally) on the Human Development Index -- ahead of Saudi Arabia at 55, Iran at 70, South Africa at 73, Jordan at 82, Egypt at 101, Indonesia at 108, India at 119, Afghanistan at 155.

It is reported that Libyans receive free housing, education, health care, substantial cash when they marry, and overseas education if they qualify.

Largest Oil Reserves in Africa: According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa".

Program to Privatize Oil: On February 21, 2011, five days after the Arab Spring broke out in Libya, Qaddafi launched a new program to privatize all Libyan oil to every citizen of Libya, initially providing $21,000 to every Libyan from a total of $32,000,000,000 in the Year 2011, so that the health, education, transport, and some other ministries could be abolished and individual Libyans could use the profits of their own investments, including from oil ownership, to obtain the relevant services.

This, Gaddafi said, is the best way to eliminate corruption, including the theft of Libyan oil by foreign oil companies, and to decentralize governmental power.

Great Man-Made River Project: The Great Man-Made River Project, begun in 1984 by Col. Gaddafi, has been called the 8th Wonder of the World. It supplies fresh water to the cities of Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte and elsewhere.

The U.S. threatened to nuke this "chemical weapons factory". Foreign companies covet the fresh water.

Gaddafi Seized Power in Bloodless Coup: Muammar Gaddafi, aka Col. Gaddafi, seized power in 1969 in a bloodless coup by overthrowing King Idris of Libya -- Idris achieved power with British backing in 1949.

Rate your news media on a scale of 1 to 10. Assign 2 points for each of the five points above that you previously knew (1 point for partial knowledge). The resulting total is an indication of how well your news media covered the US/NATO backed civil war in Libya.

Are Libyans awakening from a "ludicrous nightmare", or does the death of Gaddafi mark the beginning of a new era of imperial exploitation? We'll soon know.

Taliban seek probe into 9/11 attacks

KABUL (PAN): On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the Taliban reiterated on Saturday their demand for an independent and impartial investigation into the incident. . . .

Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said the movement had long been seeking a neutral probe into the incident. "But the US and its allies are responding to our logical demand with airstrikes and attacks."