Imam Musa shreds Hannity

People who speak truth to power sometimes have to speak truth to stupidity.

This old episode is newly relevant since Hannity is a huge Trump fan, just like he was a huge Bush fan.

"Bin Laden is YOUR homeboy, Hannity!"

Tsarnaev brothers are 9/11 truthers - and obviously innocent!

The real Boston bomber

The vast majority of the world's Muslims understand that 9/11, Bali, Madrid, 7/7, Mumbai, and similar events have been false flag attacks conducted by the enemies of Islam. As a 2011 Pew Poll found:

"There is no Muslim public in which even 30% accept that Arabs conducted the (9/11) attacks."

In Pakistan, the nation that knows "Al-CIA-duh" best, only 3% believe the official story of 9/11.

Among the vast majority of Muslims who know the truth about false-flag terror: The accused Boston Marathon bombers and their mother.

Dzokhar Tsarnaev's entirely-normal Twitter account included:

“Idk why it’s hard for many of you to accept that 9/11 was an inside job, I mean I guess fuck the facts y’all are some real #patriots #gethip”.

His older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev agreed.

According to the Rothschild-owned AP wire service:

"(Tamerlan Tsarnaev) began opposing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He turned to websites and literature claiming that the CIA was behind the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001..."

The brothers' mother,  Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, knows that "9/11 was purposefully created by the American government to make America hate Muslims" and says that her sons are innocent patsies in yet another anti-Islam false flag operation.

Their father, Anzor Tsarnaev, agrees that his sons were set up as false-flag patsies: "Somebody clearly framed them. I don't know who exactly framed them, but they did."

Virtually everyone who knew the Tsarnaev brothers says they are obviously innocent, and obviously incapable of the crimes of which they are accused.

Here is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev protesting "I never done it. They set me up" in his last Facebook post before he was shot by police, unarmed and trying to peacefully surrender, and then handed over to "Israeli doctors." Shades of Lee Harvey Oswald's famous last words: "I'm just a patsy!"

The mainstream media, owned and operated by fanatical enemies of Islam, has spun these facts in an Orwellian attempt to make the Tsarnaevs look like "radical Muslims."

But wait a minute. Muslims who know that this kind of terrorism only benefits the enemies of Islam OBVIOUSLY would never commit such acts!

The fact that the Tsarnaevs are 9/11 truthers proves their innocence.

Former 60 Minutes consultant says Burgas bus bombing a fabrication

Friday February 15th   Big News Network

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts - The Bulgarian government earlier this month made a mockery of its political independence by publicly implicating Lebanon's Hezbollah in last year's attack on an Israeli bus in the resort city of Burgas, despite the fact that its "official investigation is still going on".

Sofia has yet to make an official announcement and there is an absence of trustworthy evidence to back the claim.

Under pressure for months by Washington and Tel Aviv to name Hezbollah as the culprit for the attack that killed five Israelis and a Bulgarian bus driver, as well as the terrorist carrying the bomb, Sofia has appeased Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who within half hour of the bombing last July publicly pointed the finger at Hezbollah and Iran.

Unsurprisingly, Netanyahu was extremely gratified by the news from Sofia and wasted no time in calling on Europeans to put Hezbollah on their list of terrorist organizations, a significant move that would likely exacerbate the present civil rights of Muslims in Europe, particularly those who are involved in charitable fund raising for Hezbollah's plethora of social welfare services in Lebanon.
The US government likewise conveniently interpreted as "conclusive" the preliminary finding in the Burgas investigation that the "military formation of Hezbollah might be involved" in that attack, to paraphrase carefully chosen words from Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov.

According to a Bulgarian expert, Professor Vladimir Chukov, Tsvetanov made a "hybrid statement" that "like Britain" makes the distinction between Hezbollah as a group and its "military wing". "This is a hybrid situation that goes on to suggest that there is little chance that Bulgaria will name Hezbollah and Iran as culprits," Professor Chukov has told the Bulgarian media.

Tell that to the mainstream media that wasted no time in its avalanche of reports that Bulgaria has implicated Hezbollah in the Burgas bombing. Case in point, in the various reports in the Wall Street Journal, London's Guardian, BBC, etc, there is virtually no mention of the fact that there is no official position of the Bulgarian government as of yet, and that the investigation is still on-going. According to Professor Chukov, the interior ministry's news leak was meant simply as "a test". Yet by all indications this is a poor and politically motivated move by an official of the Bulgarian government.

"It is obvious that Bulgaria's government has chosen a political approach and is only repeating the interpretation alleged by Israel on the very next day following the attack, when the investigation had not even started," said Sergey Stanishev, the head of Bulgarian Socialist Party, who is also the Chair of Party of European Socialists. "The investigation is currently under way and there is no way one can be talking about decisive evidence regarding the direct perpetrators, much less regarding the organization that is behind this tragic event ... This is absolutely unjustified in view of national security and the risks that are taken with respect to people in Bulgaria."

There is no dearth of suspicion in Bulgaria and beyond that the government official's statement that the bombing "was most likely" the work of Hezbollah militants and that there are "obvious links" to Hezbollah is based less on hard facts and more on external political pressure. According to Minister Tsvetanov, two individuals - one Canadian and the other Australian - who have lived in Lebanon since 2006 and 2010 respectively, have been linked to the attack and "there is data showing" their "obvious links to Lebanon."

Tsvetanov's statements are backed by Rob Wainwright, the director of Europol, claiming that there is "reasonable assumption" based on "forensic evidence, intelligence sources and patterns in past attacks" that "point to Hezbollah's involvement." Not so according to Stanishev, who has labeled as "poor evidence" the data cited by officials to point accusatory fingers at Hezbollah. In fact, there is a great deal of contrary evidence to suggest the attack was a carefully orchestrated Israeli "false flag" operation aimed at smearing Hezbollah and Iran and pressuring the European Union to brand Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

The distinct possibility of an Israeli 'false flag' operation can be garnered by a careful and methodical examination of the public information, including the photographs, amateur videos and instant reports on the bus attack that occurred at exactly 5:30 pm last July 18, on the anniversary of the 1994 bombing in Argentina that Israel insists was the work of Iran and Hezbollah. That was perfect timing for Israel's propaganda machine.

As stated in this author's investigative article written immediately after the bus attack, there are at least 10 valid reasons to question the official story that a busload of Israeli tourists was the target of a terrorist bombing. Lest we forget, the autopsy results in Sofia have shown that the dead terrorist was "white and had light eyes" and initially was identified as a member of al-Qaeda, much to the chagrin of Israelis who have shown zero interest in any suspect other than Hezbollah-Iran.

To reiterate the gist of this author's own probe of this matter, a good deal of evidence exists that suggest the targeted bus was empty and the only passengers hurt were inside the adjacent bus and received light injuries.

This author has carefully examined dozens upon dozens of photographs of the Israeli tourists in question, who no doubt would have received much worse facial and other bodily injuries if they were inside the targeted bus. After all, the severed head of the bomber had been discovered some 60 meters away from the bus and an instant video shows the bus in full flames, ie, impossible for the majority of 42 purported passengers, especially the elderly females seen on stretchers en route to the hospital in various photos, to escape with little or no bodily harm, thus warranting the following 10 questions:

1. Why the amateur video of the bus taken within seconds of the explosion doesn't show anyone jumping down the bus?

2. Why so many passengers survived with only light hand and foot injuries in an explosion involving (according to the Bulgarian officials) three kilograms of TNT in front of the bus?

3. Why did the Israeli group known as Zakar appear immediately on the site and collected the bodies of the dead, per several images, when this should have been done by Bulgarians? Why was this group at the airport at that time? And where were the Bulgarian security officials during the whole time monopolized by the Zakar individuals (in yellow uniforms)? Indeed, the fact that the Bulgarians allowed the Zakar all over the crime scene and move the dead victims (who were then frisked quickly to Israel) speaks volumes about the travesty of police investigation in Bulgaria.

4. Why did the bomb kill the Israelis sitting in the back of the bus (per reports in the Israeli media) while simultaneously killing the bus driver in the front and leaving the vast majority of bus passengers only lightly harmed?

5. Why have some bus witnesses told the media that they tried to get out through the front door but found it locked and managed to get out through a "hole on the side" when both the videos and reports indicate an instant fire following the explosion engulfing the bus?

6. Why is there no report of any injuries to the bus driver in the next bus, which sustained major damage especially on the driver's side? Could the bus driver killed be the one in the second bus?

7. Why was there no extra security precaution even though according to the Israeli media prior to the landing of Israeli passengers the tour company had received a call that they would be "greeted with two bombs"?

8. Why was the trunk of the targeted bus empty and no sign of any luggage (per numerous images that also show the inside of the bus and the absence of any section for luggage contrary to the claim of one of the Israeli passengers who is quoted widely)?

9. Why did the passport and license of purported terrorist remain intact despite the raging fire in the bus?

10. Why did Israel rush all the passengers back to Israel early next morning instead of allowing the Bulgarian investigators to interview them? After all, Israel made no similar attempt to protect the lives of thousands of other Israeli tourists vacationing in Burgas, bottom line since it had no real worries about any terrorist attack against them after having pulled off its spectacular 'false flag' that must surely be a source of current pride among its Mossad intelligence officials.

Mossad agents must be patting themselves on the shoulder now for a job well-done, but then again their script perhaps was too neatly executed, given Netanyahu's instant finger toward Hezbollah and Iran, or the widespread use of a replica bus on full flame, which on closer examination shows to be different from the actual targeted bus.

The Israelis have now mastered the art of political manipulation and their latest victory in Bulgaria simply educates us about why they are ahead of the game and keep winning the battle for the world public opinion.

(The writer Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, has worked as a consultant to CBS's "60 Minutes" and has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, Voice of America, and Al-Jazeera. He is a regular contributor to The New York Times, International Herald Tribune, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Global Dialogue, and Asia Times. Afrasiabi is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press). He is author of Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing, October 23, 2008) and Looking for Rights at Harvard. His latest book is UN Management Reform: Selected Articles and Interviews on United Nations CreateSpace (November 12, 2011).

"Million Muslim march" to US capitol on 9/11/2013!

Support the Million Muslim March - join the FaceBook page!  (Non-Muslim supporters welcome!)

The vast majority of Muslims, both in the USA and worldwide, 
do not accept the official story of 9/11.

Are Muslims terrorists?

by Isa Hodge, American Muslim Political Action Committee

On September 11th 2001 the tragic events in New York and Washington put all Muslims on trial. Politicians and media outlets spread Islamophobia to the American public. They created fear and hatred for every Muslim man with a beard, every Muslim woman with a head scarf, or anyone speaking a foreign language.

The word “terrorist” became synonymous with Muslims and no one else. According to my research, the definition of terrorism changed on 9/11. The media brandished this ugly word in an orchestrated smear campaign against 1.6 billion Muslims, using techniques designed to manipulate audience emotions.

A terrorist is defined in Merriam-Webster's © 2000 as : “a person or a group of people who use the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” But after 9/11 the New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy © 2005 defines it as: “Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. They stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion.”

In reality, terrorism is not specific to one group or another; it is sometimes hard to distinguish who is and who isn’t a terrorist. As Gearld Spencer wrote in his book “Harry’s Game” (1975): “ One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

The word terrorist isn’t about Muslims; it describes a small minority of people from all races and religious beliefs.

At first, the accusation was: “All Muslims are terrorists.” When the media who made this statement realized no one in their right mind would believe that all 1.6 billion Muslims in the world could be terrorists, they reversed their statement to sound more objective and fair: “All Muslims may not be terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims.”

Really?

Someone sympathetic to Islam might respond with an example of Timothy McVeigh or the KKK. Yet the average American will continue to watch the mainstream media day in, day out and see pictures of “Muslim terrorists” flashed across the screen or spoken about for hours on the radio.

This is Anders Behring Breivik who on July 22nd 2011 dressed as a policeman and set off a series of explosions with a fully automatic rifle killing 93 people in Oslo Norway. Breivik's online 1500 page manifesto clearly stated his motives for this, as every media outlet called it, “murderous rampage” or “random act of violence” (not terrorism or terror attacks): his hatred of the “Muslimization” of his country had gone too far and he was calling on all conservative Christians to start the 4th Christian Crusade. He advocated deadlier attacks including ones involving the use of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, as reported on ABC World News on July 25th 2011.

So how does the threat from Breivik's "Christian terrorism" compare to the threat from "Muslim terrorism"?

The truth is that Muslims commit very little terrorism, compared to other groups. According to the FBI database there have been 318 terrorist incidents in the US from 1980-2005. That includes 209 bombings and 43 arson. Out of those incidents, 42% were committed by Latino groups, 24% by Extreme Left Wing groups, 7% by Jewish Extremists, 6% by Muslim Extremists, and 5% by Communists.

Also not a single U.S. civilian has been killed by Muslim extremists since 9/11. And only three out of 83 acts of terrorism between 9/11 and 2009 were done by Muslim extremists. Most were by animal rights and environmental activists.

Remember the quote “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter"? In 1985, then-President Ronald Reagan received a group of bearded men wearing turbans and looking very mean. After the meeting Reagan said: “These are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers.”

The men the President was speaking about were the Afghan Mujahiddin now known as Al Qaeda.

 You may be reluctant to consider the Founding Fathers as terrorists. But their violence was intended to frighten or terrorize enemies. As Ted Robert Gurr writes in Violence in America: Protest, Rebellion, Reform: “Physical violence was commonly used and some groups used torture and lynchings to intimidate and punish Loyalists.”

We as Americans don’t see these as acts of terrorism, but as the acts of freedom fighters, even though England was the ruling government at that time. By today standards they would be terrorists. According to the 2005 definition discussed earlier and The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85) terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence ... to intimidate or coerce a government ... in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

So what does Islam say about terrorism?  At the time the Qur'an was revealed (7th century A.D.), there was no United Nations or Amnesty International to keep the peace or expose injustice. Inter-tribal violence and vengeance were commonplace. Nevertheless, the Qur'an repeatedly urges forgiveness and restraint, and warns believers not to "transgress" or become "oppressors." For example:  Chapter 6 verse 151 "...and do NOT take any Human being's life - the life which God has declared to be sacred - otherwise than in pursuit of justice: this has He enjoined upon you so that you might use your reason!”   The Quran clearly forbids us to take any human being's life either Muslim or non-Muslim, unless it be “in pursuit of justice” meaning punishing someone for committing murder or in self defense.

So why do alleged Muslim terrorists usually receive the most coverage despite the fact that they are near the bottom of the list when it comes to terrorist activity - and their religion forbids terrorism?

 Now that the facts are clear, do you think anyone would dare to rephrase the statement and end with “almost all terrorists are…” Latinos, leftists, environmentalists, Christians, Sikhs or Jews? I doubt it. This twisted logic is only applied to Muslims, not anyone else. So next time you hear of a “terrorist,” think of the facts behind the perceptions, not the images from the media infiltrating your mind. As a famous statement goes: “Image is everything.” Indeed, everything but the truth.

Free Mona Eltahawy!

9/11 was a Hollywood-style special effects production - a gargantuan advertisement for genocide, designed to launch a 100-years-war on Islam on behalf of Zionism.

Since then, the incitement-to-genocide ads haven't let up. The latest examples include the "Innocence of Muslims" film provocation, and the New York City subway ads calling Muslims "savages" and cheering for the Zionist genocide of the Palestinians.

A brave New York journalist named Mona Eltahawy was recently arrested for "defacing" the pro-genocide ads.



Everyone associated with putting up these ads needs to be arrested, tried, and executed for incitement to genocide, right alongside the 9/11 perps and the complicit media bosses. And Mona Eltahawi should be freed and given an award for her resistance to crimes against humanity.

Hard-hitting 9/11 truth in Press TV's report on Orange County "spy on Muslims" case

[Note: This Press TV video includes hard-hitting 9/11 truth statements by Muslims for 9/11 Truth co-founder Kevin Barrett, echoed by Imam Musa] 

US government tramples on citizens’ constitutional rights: Analyst

A federal judge in the US has rejected a lawsuit filed against the country’s administration over spying by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on Muslims in Orange County, California.

US District Judge Cormac J. Carney made the decision on Tuesday, claiming that if the suit proceeds, it may disclose ‘sensitive government data.’

The move came in response to a lawsuit filed last year when FBI sent an undercover informant, named Craig Monteilh, to the mosques of Orange County. Muslims say the agency has violated their civil liberties.

Following the ruling, the non-profit American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California and the US-based organization of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had lodged the compliant on behalf of three Orange County Muslims, said they would appeal the judge’s decision.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Abdul Alim Musa, the Imam of Masjid al-Islam, from Washington, to further discuss the issue.

The program also offers the opinions of two other guests: Richard Becker, with A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, from San Francisco, and Dr. Kevin Barrett, with the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, from Madison. The following is a rough transcription of the interview with Abdul Alim Musa.

Press TV: Let’s look at and zoom in on that new racial profiling because it seems like not a new story but occurring time and again. I’d like to ask you this, Abdul Ali Musa, why is it that it keeps continuing?

Maybe you can shed light on this if you have personal experience of it yourself. I know that in some examples, Muslims, persons of religious faith of Islam, going through, for example, airports in the United States get looked at in a different light.

Musa: [In the Name of God - Most Beneficent; Most Merciful] First of all, I would like to say that on the situation of Orange County, I’ve spoken there several times at the University of Irvine. The imam at the masjid in Irvine that was there a few years ago, Imam Sadullah Khan from South Africa, we have been personal friends for decades.

What I found there was not only infiltration of the masjid and the workings in Orange County from the low end but also the second in command of our organization, a notorious saboteur and infiltrator, we used to call him Amir Abdul Malik Ali, it seems as though he worked in perfect cooperation with Israeli agents and American institutions to arrange situations in Orange County especially at the university.

This person was based in Oakland but would go to Orange County or go to Irvine at least once or twice a week for several years.

It seems as though they would arrange situations that would justify the government infiltrating. They have to have a pretext or a reason, like our brother said earlier about 9/11 and all of these government arranged processes. The same thing happened in Orange County.

Why is it a repeat in our history? Anyone in America that wants to do good, the race doesn’t matter: if you are Philip Berrigan, if you’re Martin Luther King or if you’re Malcolm X, it didn’t matter.

If you want to make a better world or institute a new program improving the condition of humanity, the government has a set pattern to come out and crush you anyway it can.

We go back to the Judge [Robert] Bork days when he was trying to get in the Supreme Court, over 25 years ago when the government lost a case against the Palestinian Nine -- they called them the Palestinian Nine, they were not all Palestinians - in the mid 1980s, the government lost its case. It was thrown out because the government used illegal means to acquire information, and it was thrown out.

That was the beginning of this stage for the renewal of the changing or the arrange for the changing of the laws of the United States and what we call a constitutional dictatorship to the point that now we are targeted killings, we have Anwar al-Awlaki and his son droned to death, we have drones in Pakistan, we have drones all over the Muslim world killing people without any due process, without any justification and without any explanation.

Now, the laws inside the United States, the Constitution, have been removed from society. Technically, the Bill of Rights doesn’t exist. This is why the government now feels free to say we can’t disclose any of the illegal doings that we do because it’s a state secret.

Well, everything that they do is a state secret but they feel free to trample on our so-called constitutional rights and guarantees.

We believe this is an arranged process. We believe that there are three main - when we talk about terror, we talk about the American government militarily around the world, the Israeli government with the media, the Israeli affiliates throughout the world and their operatives that control the media, the books and everything else that feed us a diet of disbelief.

Then we have Saudi Arabia. When you hear about al-Qaeda, when you hear about Taliban, when you hear about all of these disjointed Muslims killing other Muslims, then you’re talking about Saudi Arabia.

Remember, when you tied a triangle of terror together, you have American military, Israeli or Zionist media, and then you have the Saudi Arabians which help arrange things.

In 9/11, they said most of them were Saudi Arabians. So, if they were from Saudi Arabia, why didn’t they invade Saudi Arabia instead of invading Afghanistan?

Press TV: Imam Musa, since our guest there in San Francisco talked about the Occupy movement, we had news last week that came out that the US government has through their security apparatus raided some homes of Occupy protesters in certain states and actually retrieved some of the documents there including, perhaps, documents stored in their computers.

Why have they gone this far? Do they think the problem will be resolved in this form and manner when the bigger picture that the Occupy movement is preaching is not something that’s being addressed? -At least that’s the feeling that the Occupy movement has.

Musa: We can clearly see -- again, I am here in Washington D.C. and our original office, masjid and center is in Oakland, California. Oakland, California, has been one of the centers of the Occupy movement.

When I went down to visit several times, I could see clearly that they had already arranged many saboteurs, many infiltrators, many people to cause trouble and make it look like this totally non-violent movement was involved in violence, dope smoking.

In Dallas and other places, they sent homeless people and drug addicts and everything to press on the movement and join the movement; and it justifies the police again in cracking down.

As our brother said earlier, this system, automatically, I don’t know why we have to repeat it so much, it automatically goes into the mode of oppression.

If you take issues like Imam Luqman who was assassinated three years ago in Detroit, it was a setup, it was arranged, and was a clear assassination; whether it’s the masjid in New York, whether it’s our centers in Washington D.C., in Oakland.

There was a report this month, the August edition of Horizon, this is a national Islamic magazine, and they did research and they came up with a number: they feel there have been over 500,000 interviews by the Federal government since 9/11 of Muslims - just one point - 15,000 agents... 

Leaked film: US military developing genocidal anti-Islam bio-weapon

9/11 was a Zionist false-flag attack designed to trick the West into launching a genocidal war on Islam.

More than two million Muslims have been killed; tens of millions have had their lives ruined; several Muslim countries have been smashed into pieces according to the Oded Yinon plan to Balkanize the Middle East; and the religion of Islam has been dealt a series of blows as many of its greatest leaders have been kidnapped, tortured, and murdered; while the survivors have been conditioned by advanced mind-control techniques not to defend themselves and their faith.

The undeniable fact that we are living in an era of an attempted anti-Islam genocide (part of a satanic New World Order plan to eliminate the worship of God on earth) has now been proven beyond the slightest shred of doubt. This leaked Pentagon video details a plan to introduce mind-controlling biological warfare agents into flu vaccines that would be distributed in Muslim countries.

The perpetrators of this genocidal plan claim that their bio-weapon would merely kill off the part of the brain associated with "religious extremism." But what is "religious extremism"? According to the Israel-run US Pentagon, those who are willing to die fi sabili llah (in the path of God) to resist a genocidal foreign invasion of their country are "religious extremists."

I would just call them "Muslims" and "human beings." The Qur'an demands that Muslims fight back when their community is invaded. And human nature demands the same thing.

According to the Pentagon's satanic viewpoint, the Prophet Muhammad (peace upon him) was a "religious extremist." So were Jesus and Buddha and Moses and all the other great prophets and saints and religious teachers and pious scholars, may Allah be pleased with all of them.

Obviously the organization developing this genocidal bio-weapon, which is designed to kill off the part of the brain that plugs us in to the whole purpose of human existence - which is to surrender completely to God, and live and struggle in the path of God - is even more Satanic than the most "radical" Muslims could ever have imagined.

Anyone who is not waging an all out struggle, by whatever means are most effective, against this genocidal satanic monster is neither a Muslim nor a human being worthy of the supreme gift of life.

-Kevin Barrett

All Terrorists Are Muslim, Except the 94% that Aren't

As I showed in my book Questioning the War on Terror: As a US citizen, your chances of being killed by a terrorist - any terrorist - are far lower than your chances of being struck by lightning. Yet the Zionist-dominated media keep whipping up fear of the statistically insignificant "terrorist threat" - and use that fear to stoke Islamophobia. In reality, however, Jewish-extremist terrorism is a bigger threat to Americans than Islamic-extremist terrorism...and Latinos and left-wingers are a vastly bigger threat than Jews and Muslims put together! If anyone you know is gullible enough to believe the "Muslim terrorist threat" propaganda they're getting from the Zionist-dominated media, please send them this story from loonwatch.com (excerpted below).

-Kevin Barrett, editor, Muslims for 9/11 Truth website

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

From the story at Loonwatch.com

According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group.

* * *

The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews). Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.

The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims. Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent. Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country?

* * *

Full article (well worth reading): All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t - Loonwatch.com

See also:

Europol Report: All Terrorists Are Muslims...Except the 99.6% that Aren't

RAND report: Threat of homegrown jihadism exaggerated, Zero U.S. civilians killed since 9/11

Zionist media tries to blame Muslims for Islamophobe's act of terrorism

Why do Zionist-owned-and-operated outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post keep peddling the "Muslims are terrorists" blood libel? Could their fanatical loyalty to Israel, which can only survive by tricking the West into waging war on Zionism's enemies, have something to do with it? Congratulations to honest and independent Jewish observers like Glen Greenwald and Richard Silverstein (no relation to Larry, obviously!) who dare to speak out against the endless flood of Islamophobic mainstream media sewage. -KB

* * *

Saturday, Jul 23, 2011 07:24 ET

By Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of "Terrorism"

AP

An injured woman is assisted from a damaged building in Oslo, Friday, after an explosion rocked the city.

(updated below - Update II)

For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates. The morning statement issued by President Obama -- "It's a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring" and "we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks" -- appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group.

But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. Despite that, The New York Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals (h/t sysprog):

Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks.

"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.

Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.

Then there's this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT -- first noticed by Richard Silverstein -- explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:

Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible.

In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism. As Silverstein put it:

How's that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world?

What it says is what we've seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't). As Maz Hussain -- whose lengthy Twitter commentary on this event yesterday was superb and well worth reading -- put it:

That Terrorism means nothing more than violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes has been proven repeatedly. When an airplane was flown into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, it was immediately proclaimed to be Terrorism, until it was revealed that the attacker was a white, non-Muslim, American anti-tax advocate with a series of domestic political grievances. The U.S. and its allies can, by definition, never commit Terrorism even when it is beyond question that the purpose of their violence is to terrorize civilian populations into submission. Conversely, Muslims who attack purely military targets -- even if the target is an invading army in their own countries -- are, by definition, Terrorists. That is why, as NYU's Remi Brulin has extensively documented, Terrorism is the most meaningless, and therefore the most manipulated, word in the English language. Yesterday provided yet another sterling example.

One last question: if, as preliminary evidence suggests, it turns out that Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?

UPDATE: The original version of the NYT article was even worse in this regard. As several people noted, here is what the article originally said (papers that carry NYT articles still have the original version):

Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out terrorism as the cause of Friday's assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking al-Qaida's signature brutality and multiple attacks.

"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from al-Qaida," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.

Thus: if it turns out that the perpetrators weren't Muslim (but rather "someone with more political motivations" -- whatever that means: it presumably rests on the inane notion that Islamic radicals are motivated by religion, not political grievances), then it means that Terrorism, by definition, would be "ruled out" (one might think that the more politically-motivated an act of violence is, the more deserving it is of the Terrorism label, but this just proves that the defining feature of the word Terrorism is Muslim violence). The final version of the NYT article inserted the word "Islamic" before "terrorism" ("even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause"), but -- as demonstrated above -- still preserved the necessary inference that only Muslims can be Terrorists. Meanwhile, in the world of reality, of 294 Terrorist attacks attempted or executed on European soil in 2009 as counted by the EU, a grand total of one -- 1 out of 294 -- was perpetrated by "Islamists."

UPDATE II: This article expertly traces and sets forth exactly how the "Muslims-did-it" myth was manufactured and then disseminated yesterday to the worldwide media, which predictably repeated it with little skepticism. What makes the article so valuable is that it names names: it points to the incestuous, self-regarding network of self-proclaimed U.S. Terrorism and foreign policy "experts" -- what the article accurately describes as "almost always white men and very often with military or government backgrounds," in this instance driven by "a case of an elite fanboy wanting to be the first to pass on leaked gadget specs" -- who so often shape these media stories and are uncritically presented as experts, even though they're drowning in bias, nationalism, ignorance, and shallow credentialism.

• 
  

More "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories" Turn Out to Be True

Egyptian "Islamic Extremist Terror Attacks" Were Inside Jobs

"That and the New Years Eve attack on the Coptic Church in Alexandria, which many were already speculating was an inside job (pointing to the lack of government interest in investigating a major attack) both appear to now be confirmed, at least assuming the documents are authentic (and all indications are that they are). The revelations will likely spark another call to move legally against regime leaders for their crimes." Jason Ditz, antiwar.com

Once again, several "outrageous conspiracy theories" have turned out to be true. Which raises the million-dollar question: If the American people stormed the White House, the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, and (above all) AIPAC and JINSA headquarters, and liberated the documents therein, might they find papers confirming what we already suspect about 9/11, based on the lack of government interest in investigating a major attack, among a great many other reasons? And is this what it would take to move legally against regime leaders for their crimes? If so, count me in - I'm ready to storm these places, and if necessary die while doing so, as soon as you-all are. -Kevin Barrett


Docs: Egypt Security Bombed Churches, Resort

Collection of Official Docs Reveals Various Mubarak-Era Crimes

by Jason Ditz, March 08, 201

Just days after the Egyptian protesters attacked the state’s internal security headquarters and rescued reems of documents about Mubarak-era crimes that were about to be destroyed http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41927204/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/, some of the dirtiest such deeds are starting to come to light. And even for the notorious Mubarak regime, they’re surprisingly bad.

Sex tapes, documents detailing broad surveillance of Egyptian dissidents and transcripts of telephone conversations between the dissenters and their family members, sure, but the biggest of what has come out so far reveals something far worse: official government involvement in the Alexandria church bombing and in a 2005 resort bombing.

Its the sort of allegation that would normally seem too extreme to have any credibility, but they’re detailed in official documents as absolute facts.The Sharm al-Sheikh terrorist attacks of July 2005 were blamed on local Bedouins, but the documents instead reveal they were plotted by Interior Minister Habib el-Adly to target a business rival of Hosni Mubarak’s son Gamal.

That and the New Years Eve attack on the Coptic Church in Alexandria, which many were already speculating was an inside job (pointing to the lack of government interest in investigating a major attack) both appear to now be confirmed, at least assuming the documents are authentic (and all indications are that they are). The revelations will likely spark another call to move legally against regime leaders for their crimes.

Egypt Security documents reveal False Flag attack on Church (blamed on Moslems)

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/07/2102847/egypt-unsure-what-to-do-about.html

Monday, 03.07.11

Egypt unsure what to do about trove of security documents

BY HANNAH ALLAM AND MOHANNAD SABRY

MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

CAIRO -- Less than a month after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's caretaker government faces a new crisis: what to do about thousands of documents that protesters seized from State Security Agency offices over the weekend.

The military-led interim authority has demanded that the classified files kept by Mubarak's dreaded internal spy agency be returned. Instead, they're being scattered throughout Egypt, with files turning up on Facebook and Twitter hourly, forcing the government to respond to them and raising fears among some activists that their value has been reduced for any future prosecutions for torture and kidnapping.

Some of what the documents contain is salacious and sinister.

One file includes a sex tape purportedly involving a Kuwaiti princess and a prominent Egyptian businessman. Another paints Egypt's highest-ranking cleric as a womanizer.

Israa Abdel Fattah, 32, a labor organizer and blogger, shared her file with McClatchy and marveled at the thoroughness of the surveillance. The file included detailed transcripts of e-mails sent from her Gmail account and phone conversations with her ex-husband. The feeling of violation was indescribable, she said.

"I knew they were watching me, but I never imagined they knew all this information about me," she said. "My friends tried to take me out to dinner that night. They tried to make me laugh, but I couldn't. I told them I should be alone, so I took my papers and went home."

Perhaps the most controversial document to surface was one that purports to lay out State Security's involvement in a church bombing on New Year's Day in Alexandria. The bombing killed 21 people and wounded 80, the worst violence against Egypt's Coptic Christian minority in more than a decade.

The legitimacy of the document hasn't been determined, but its distribution touched off protests Sunday in Cairo by hundreds of Coptic Christians.

Copts, especially those in Alexandria, had suspected state involvement in the bombing, noting that a stepped-up security force that was supposed to have protected the church had vanished before the bomb exploded.

According to the document, one of eight said to discuss attacks on churches, State Security used a jailed Islamist to help organize the plot, including details on the church's entrances and exits. The document was dated Dec. 2, 2010, and was addressed to the interior minister. It referred to the church bombing as "Mission No. 77."

Georgette Qilini, a Copt who served in the Egyptian parliament, said Mubarak's information minister ordered television stations to stop inviting her to speak after she suggested on the air that State Security was involved in the explosion.

"Maybe they were involved," Qilini said Monday. "We visited the church after the incident and we didn't believe the official story. There are still many, many questions, but I don't have any documents."

There are also several files that back State Security officers' reputation for torture. In one letter stamped "top secret" in 2008 and made available on Facebook, a senior official wrote that detainees suffered "injuries" while in State Security custody. He complained that questioning had to be delayed until the wounds had healed.

Questions abound. Why, for example, would such a serious plot as the church bombing be outlined in a document that was found so quickly? Why were some documents shredded and others not?

Egyptian State Security Archives Yield Evidence of False Flag Attacks

http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/08/egyptian-state-security-archiv

Stephen J. Smith | March 8, 2011

As Jesse Walker reported on Saturday, angry protesters stormed various State Security buildings throughout Egypt over the weekend after hearing reports that officials were destroying files that could shed light on various abuses over the years. While Human Rights Watch yearns for a "procedure" for publishing the documents that were saved from State Security's shredders, Egyptians opted for the WikiLeaks model. Scans of files have been appearing on Facebook and image hosting sites like Yfrog ("problematic," says HRW), and the Twitter hashtag #AmnDawla has been flooded with discussions and links to the documents since Friday.

Documents published so far, assuming they're real (and the Obama administration seems to be acting as if they are), have unearthed everything from Skype snooping to a whole room full of compromising sex tapes. But perhaps the most incendiary files posted have been those tying the Interior Ministry to attacks supposedly perpetrated by terrorists. Disgraced former Interior Minister Habib el-Adly had already been widely suspected of being involved in the New Year's Eve Coptic church bombing, but the appearance of a file on "Mission No. 77" seems to confirm regime critics' most damning accusations. McClatchy says that the document describes how State Security used a jailed Islamist to carry out the attack (which had been attributed to al-Qaeda), and, perhaps more ominously, they claim that there are at least seven more files on church attacks among the pilfered documents.

Aside from the New Year's Eve attack, which was already under scrutiny before the storming of State Security offices, the documents also point to a similar conclusion with regards an earlier bombing in the seaside resort of Sharm El-Sheikh. The 2005 attack, which killed 88 and was initially blamed on Bedouin terrorists, was actually a plot by el-Adly and Gamal Mubarak to get back at one of Gamal's business rivals, according to a leaked document (partial English translation here).

And beyond these two attacks documented in the leaked files, questions have been raised about the Nag Hammadi church attack in early 2010. The allegations were apparently serious enough that an Egyptian official felt the need to deny the rumors to American diplomats, while at the same time conceding that the official explanation for the attacks "doesn't seem to fit."

Up until now, claims of terrorism have been the most effective way for Arab dictators to get sympathy and support from the US. (The Yemeni regime, which is now teetering on the edge of collapse, saw its aid double after the Christmas 2009 attempted underwear bombing.) American policy in the region has been predicated on the Faustian bargain that we overlook Arab dictators' shoddy human rights record and continue to prop them up in exchange for stability and a hard line on Islamic terrorism. But the Egyptian State Security archives suggest that not only were the Mubaraks not delivering an end to Islamic radicalism, but the regime itself may have been the source of much of Egypt's terrorism and sectarian strife.

Clashes in Egypt blamed on diehards of the former regime

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/egypt-govt-warns-of-counterrevolution-20110310-1bopf.html
Egypt govt warns of 'counter-revolution'

Jailan Zayan

March 10, 2011 - 11:19AM

AFP

Egypt's new government warned on Wednesday of a "counter-revolution" following a series of deadly political and religious clashes blamed on diehards of the former regime.

The government said it "is fully committed to the interests of the people and to implementing the goals of the revolution; and it will stand firm against plans for a counter-revolution," according to state news agency MENA.

Meanwhile, the newly appointed cabinet met with the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to propose a law criminalising threatening behaviour, MENA said.

A statement later said the cabinet had discussed "developments in the country, specifically the acts that have hindered daily life, acts of thuggery, incitement, intimidation and tensions affecting national unity".

Accordingly, it has "ordered the swift return of police forces, in their full capacity, back to the streets" and "urged citizens to cooperate with the police".

On Tuesday, clashes killed at least 13 in Cairo, the health ministry said.

Bloody fighting broke out late on Tuesday in the working-class Cairo district of Moqattam when Muslims confronted Christians who had been blocking a main road in protest at the burning of a church last week in the provincial town of Sol, south of Cairo.

The attack on the church came after clashes between Copts and Muslims that left two people dead.

Father Boutros Roshdy of a Moqattam church said at least seven Coptic Christians were among the dead on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the epicentre of anti-regime protests that toppled president Hosni Mubarak, attackers armed with knives and machetes waded into hundreds of pro-democracy activists on Wednesday, witnesses said.

Stone-throwing skirmishes raged, and activists were gathering sticks and stockpiling rocks to defend themselves.

By early evening, the army had restored order in the square, dismantling tents pitched by protesters shortly after anti-regime riots erupted on January 25, and detaining several protesters, MENA said.

The violence, widely blamed on remnants of Mubarak's regime, revealed the security vacuum created by police, who disappeared from the streets during January protests that led to Mubarak's resignation. ...

Is Thierry Meyssan, the original 9/11 trutheur, converting to Islam?

According to a report at the French Muslim website Oumma.com, Thierry Meyssan - the respected left-leaning intellectual who shocked the world in 2002 with the news that 9/11 was an inside job - is converting to Islam.

Meyssan, whose book L'éffrayeuse imposture (9/11: The Big Lie) set French publishing records in 2002 and made him a controversial figure, is reported to be planning an event this weekend announcing his conversion to Islam alongside three other prominent anti-Zionist French intellectuals - Alain Soral, Dieudonné, and Paul-Éric Blanrue.

According to the Oumma.com report, Meyssan and the other new converts are arranging the public event to announce their conversions in order to strike a blow against Islamophobia: "The club of anti-Zionists has decided to deliver a huge kick to the Parisian Islamophobic anthill and make its blood boil."

Quoting the HistoryCommons.org entry on Thierry Meyssan:

Early March 2002: French Author Claims Plane Crash into Pentagon Was Staged

Thierry Meyssan. [Source: Public domain]The book l’Effroyable Imposture (The Horrifying Fraud) is published in France. The book claims that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon on 9/11. It is written by Thierry Meyssan, “president of the Voltaire Network, a respected independent think tank whose left-leaning research projects have until now been considered models of reasonableness and objectivity.” [Guardian, 4/1/2002] The book is widely denounced by the media (See, for example, [Agence France-Presse, 3/21/2002; London Times, 5/19/2002; National Post, 8/31/2002; Baltimore Sun, 9/12/2002] ). One reporter heavily criticizes the book even while admitting never to have read it. [LA Weekly, 7/19/2002] In France, however, the book sets a publishing record for first-month sales. [Time (Europe), 5/20/2002] One of Meyssan’s theories is that people within the US government wanted to hit the Pentagon for its propaganda effect, but did not want to create a lot of damage or kill important people like Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. He notes that the plane hit the one section under construction, thus greatly reducing the loss of life. [Agence France-Presse, 3/21/2002; London Times, 5/19/2002] Furthermore, the wall at point of impact was the first and only one to be reinforced and have blast-resistant windows installed as part of an upgrade plan. [NFPA Journal, 11/1/2001]