Jihad Watch: ISNA Throws a Hissy Fit

from scarlettcrusader.wor posted with vodpod

(H/T - Scarlett Crusader)

I don’t know too much about this ISNA, but I do have the Al-Ikhwan Al-Moslemoon document: Read excerpts and Download PDF here.

17 Comments

  1. trajan75
    Posted May 4, 2008 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

    ISNa was the group Think Progress is allied with.

  2. Posted May 4, 2008 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

    According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation”; “convenes annual conferences where Islamist militants have been given a platform to incite violence and promote hatred” (for instance, al Qaeda supporter and PLO official Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi was invited to speak at an ISNA conference); has held fundraisers for terrorists (after Hamas leader Mousa Marzook was arrested and eventually deported in 1997, ISNA raised money for his defense); has condemned the U.S. government’s post-9/11 seizure of Hamas’ and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s financial assets; and publishes a bi-monthly magazine, Islamic Horizons, that “often champions militant Islamist doctrine.”

    There’s a lot more at DISCOVERTHENETWORKS.ORG

  3. Posted May 5, 2008 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    I thought you might be interested in reading these two articles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/22/AR2007102200731.html

    and this one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/howard-dean-parties-with-_b_64196.html

    I think we really need to be asking why high profile cases are not acheiving guilty verdicts. After 9/11 - why? An American jury can not come to a guilty verdict. The first article discusses the Holy Land Foundation - where ISNA and CAIR were listed as co-conspirators - this is the high profile case everyone keeps talking about. The second article gives a reason for why these organizations become “unindicted co-conspirators”.

    I’ll probably go to another ISNA convention.

  4. Posted May 5, 2008 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    “I think we really need to be asking why high profile cases are not acheiving guilty verdicts.”

    Because in order for a case to be high profile, it needs to be one that can be covered by the media without revealing valuable intelligence. Most of the real terrorists (e.g. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, though he recently was charged) are being used by the intelligence community; the ones the intelligence community has no use for (because they’re innocent or completely and totally clueless) are handed over to the civilian system so that the media can make a big deal about them.

    Also, (possibly as a result of this), the government has a tendency to grossly overinflate the evildoers’ crimes. John Walker Lindh is a perfect example of this. Most people think of him as some evil, diabolical fiend who hates America and travel to Afghanistan to fight American forces, because this is how the government described him. In reality, however, he had moved to Afghanistan many years before because it was the one of the Muslim regions most desperatly in need of help. He was working as a border guard in the Afghan national army in order to help pacify the North. It is certainly true that he didn’t have much of a problem with the Taliban (remember, this was before 9/11 revealed just how sinister they were), and it might be true that he violated the embargo by importing his services (the one thing he was convicted for), though I personally think that’s a bit of a stretch. But he did not commit treason, he did not fire a single shot at any American troops, and he did not have any connects with al-Qaeda. If you’d like to know more about this, there’s a post on my blog.

  5. Posted May 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Samaha,

    O.J. Simpson was found not guilty as well.

    And from the WaPo article:

    There was no dispute at the trial that the foundation had sent money to aid the “zakat,” or charity, committees in Gaza and the West Bank.

    One of the key questions at the trial was whether those zakat committees aided by Holy Land were part of Hamas, the militant organization.

    Um… is this really a question? I would think not for anyone with some basic knowledge of who HAMAS is and how they operate.

    Anyway, if you read the document in question (linked above) it lists groups which the Muslim Brotherhood wants to use to infiltrate North America (I’m not making this up, this is what the document says), ISNA is one of them. Seriously, read the document, it’s a PDF and it’s not that long.

    Without Holy Land, “I wonder where those families go,” defense attorney Lindo Moreno told jurors. “I wonder where those children go. Do they go to the government of Israel?”

    Well, yes, and they do… that is, if HAMAS wasn’t stealing the aid before it got to the Palestinians.

    Sergei,

    What do you think about Ismail Royer? As far as we know, he never fired at an American Soldier nor did he have any direct connections with al-Qaida.

    Also, Bush approved Lindh’s plea agreement when others wanted him tried for treason link

    How dare Bush not listen to We the People!? Right?

    Fortunately, trials do not consist of statements made be the father of the accused.

    Also, what’s emotional about this:

    The elder Lindh would have us believe that somehow America supported what Lindh, Jr. and bin Laden did at one time. Pure invention: Osama bin Laden never received any US CIA funding: He channeled Saudi money into what was then called the Office of Services and then into his own ventures. Yes, the Taliban were mujahids, but their draconian regime and support of bin Laden made them pariahs long before Lindh went there. Later in the post-Soviet era of Afghanistan the CIA would pay Massoud money to try to kill Bin Laden. Lindh, Jr. went there to kill the members of Massouds’ fighters. When the war broke out, there was no clearer distinction of “with us or against us” than the forces of bin Laden and the Taliban against the combined Afghan forces we called “the Northern Alliance.” Lindh was on Bin Laden’s side, against us. Period. End of conversation.

    This seems pretty straight forward and is the point of Pelton’s article.

  6. Posted May 6, 2008 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Hey - I just tried again and I get a message that states missing attachment for that pdf document.

    It’s quite an important question whether the commitees that Holy Land Foundation was giving funds to was run by Hamas - that’s the whole association. It’s also an important question of whether the people that ran the charity from the US knew that these commitees were part of Hamas (if such is the case).

    I think that the whole “how Hamas runs” is something that we are more aware of now, post 9/11. Ignorance does not mean guilty.

  7. Posted May 6, 2008 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Hmmm….

    Try this link, Samaha.

    Also, I’m not necessarily talking about ISNA’s involvement with the HLF, I’m talking about the Muslim Brotherhood document that makes about 30 North American Islamic organizations sound as OBL would like them to be. This doesn’t mean that they necessarily are but, just like any investigation, if prosecutors happen to find a document with a list of organizations and the document went on to say that their goal should be to all work toward the same end, namely, Islamic domination of North America through covert infiltration and jihad, that’s going to raise a few eyebrows at least.

  8. sergeipsd
    Posted May 6, 2008 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    “When the war broke out, there was no clearer distinction of “with us or against us” than the forces of bin Laden and the Taliban against the combined Afghan forces we called “the Northern Alliance.” Lindh was on Bin Laden’s side, against us. Period. End of conversation.”

    Actually, that’s precisely the sort of thing I’m talking about. It wasn’t that simple. Just as the enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend, the friend of the friend of my enemy is not necessarily my enemy. Or something like that. By means of comparison, the government of Saudi Arabia is my enemy, you are a friend of the United States government, and the United States government is a friend of the Saudi government, but that does not mean that you are my enemy.

    Lindh was an employee of the Afghan government. The secretary of Badakhshan province’s Deputy Assistant Minister of Agriculture in charge of soy and legume affairs was also an employee of the Afghan government (assuming that he existed). Was he on bin Laden’s side, against us, as well?

  9. Posted May 6, 2008 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Well, he was over-simplifying things because he didn’t know all of the facts, however, that’s not the same as being emotional. He has strong convictions and beliefs, but it’s not like he was pleading for us to see things his way.

    In any case, this is why witnesses are cross-examined, just because one the enemy of my enemy is an idiot and a simpleton, doesn’t mean that my enemy is no longer my enemy… or something like that.

  10. Posted May 7, 2008 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    “Well, he was over-simplifying things because he didn’t know all of the facts, however, that’s not the same as being emotional.”

    He didn’t know all the facts? He was responding to Lindh, Sr.’s speech. That speech contained the facts — facts that Pelton completely ignores. He simply repeats his accusations, without addressing any of Frank Lindh’s objections to them. It’s the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “I can’t hear you!”

    As for being emotional, how’s this?

    “To hell with John Walker Lindh and his murderous ilk.”

    However, my point was not that he was being emotional, but that he was appealing to emotion. He keeps on talking about Spann’s death. I hate to say it, but it was war. People die in war. That’s the way that it is. And Spann was most certainly not the only one to die. Pelton speaks of Spann’s death as though it were the crime of the century, then blithely says,

    “Downstairs, the doctors hate these people. They have just murdered their compatriots in cold blood there will be no pity for the men left downstairs. They are all now dead or in Gitmo. Lindh will be the lucky one.”

    Apparently, killing prisoners is perfectly acceptable, while killing someone in an attempt to avoid being taken prisoner and subsequently executed is a deed of such sublime perfidy that none can compare.

    Furthermore, Pelton actually has the gall to complain about Lindh having a bad attitude, despite the fact that he is a prisoner of war, many of his longtime friends have just been killed, the rest are being murdered downstairs at that very moment, and he was being held by people who would later torture him, a fact that Pelton notes but does not seem to care about:

    “I know what happened to Lindh after that because I met some of the Marines that did it. He could have suffered much worse.”

    Apparently, it’s only a sin when somebody else is doing it. IOKIYAA.

  11. Posted May 7, 2008 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    Mr. Lindh doesn’t know any more of John’s intentions than Pelton does, neither of them were in that basement. I think Lindh was rightly suspected off aiding our enemies and he received a fair trial. Remember, I don’t believe in violent jihad. I think it’s a dangerous part of the Islamic ideology, one that will probably force Islam to change, this is not a world of religions any more, we are a world of nations. If Islam threatens that structure (and on the point of jihad, it most certainly does… WTF are Pakistani, Uzbeki, Saudi, and American Muslims doing in Afghanistan?) I believe it will force a conflict between Muslims and the nations in which they live.

    e.g. take a look at MPACUK’s words against Britain for being too “Zionist” and for bowing down to Israel. For that matter, look at CAIR and MAS.

  12. Posted May 7, 2008 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    “he received a fair trial.”

    Exactly.

    “WTF are Pakistani, Uzbeki, Saudi, and American Muslims doing in Afghanistan?”

    A better question might be what were the Russians doing there. Remember, the Afghan Jihad was purely defensive.

  13. Posted May 7, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Sergei,

    I think we both know what the Russians were doing there, that’s beside the point. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think very highly of the Taliban even if they are not “terrorists” strictly so called (in the al-Qaida sense).

    Also, are you implying that helping the Taliban after the end of the war with the Soviets was still jihad? Was ethnic cleansing of Hazara Shias jihad? How about destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas? Was that jihad too?

    Lindh was giving aid to savages who had destroyed an already fragile, war-torn country when they should have been rebuilding, and who also harbored Osama bin Laden (already a terrorist according to the US before (9/11) until he fled. Mr. Lindh (the father) can cry me a river, his son was 20 years old, i.e. culpable.

  14. Posted May 7, 2008 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    After they were driven from power, the Taliban essentially merged with al-Qaeda.

    “Also, are you implying that helping the Taliban after the end of the war with the Soviets was still jihad?”

    I wasn’t talking about the Taliban (who weren’t around during the Afghan Jihad, anyway). I was explaining why all those Uzbeks, Saudis, etc. went to Afghanistan (after the Soviets left, the mujahideen found themselves in a situation similar to that in which we now find ourselves in Iraq, which is why they stayed).

    “Lindh was giving aid to savages who had destroyed an already fragile, war-torn country when they should have been rebuilding”

    Common misconception. Afghan wasn’t destroyed by the Taliban, it was destroyed by the mujahedeen, and the Soviets, and the civil war. The reason why the Taliban rose to power in the first place was that they were an alternative to the decades of carnage. They brought justice — draconian justice, yes, but even draconian justice is preferable to an eternity of misery and death. That’s why Lindh was helping them — not because he wanted to help them in an offensive jihad, but because he wanted to end the war that was already going on, so that Afghanistan could have a chance to catch its breath.

    To be clear: I do not think that Lindh was blameless. I just don’t think that he was a terrorist.

  15. Posted May 7, 2008 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    Fair enough, I don’t think he was a terrorist either.

  16. trajan75
    Posted May 7, 2008 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    Sergei,
    Our Persian/Iran expert! How’re you doing?

  17. Posted May 8, 2008 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    Busy. I’m currently writing a term paper on the seething chaos that is the Persian present tense.

    Speaking of Iran, today at the Berkeley BART station there was a group of Iranian-Americans protesting for the government to take the People’s Mujahedin of Iran off the list of terrorist organizations. (The PMOI was the biggest faction in the Islamic Revolution other than Khomeini’s. When the Shah abdicated and Khomeini seized power, it was this group that he cracked down on the hardest. They have since renounced violence, resisting the regime in other ways, such as uncovering Iran’s nuclear program for us. There is currently a contingent of US troops protecting a large PMOI camp outside of Baghdad.)

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*