Judge: Islamic Charities Liable in Death

Too bad Yusuf Islam didn't get named as one of Hamas's fundraisers.

From former New Statesman editor Sarah Baxter's Oct. 18/04 London Times article A Democrat for Bush:

"I also had a formative experience in 1989. I was a cub reporter at the London magazine Time Out when I covered the campaign by Yusuf Islam — Cat Stevens — to gain state funding for his Islamia school in Brent, north London. I was ambitious to seek out foreign stories as a freelance and had heard that an obscure group called Hamas was becoming a force to be reckoned with in the occupied territories.

I was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and wanted to know more about these upstart challengers to Israel and the PLO. But how could I possibly gain access to Hamas? I rang my contacts at the Islamia school and bingo! I was immediately put in touch with their leaders in Gaza, whom Cat Stevens was flying off to see that very month.

I took two weeks’ holiday from Time Out and set off for the occupied territories with a black chiffon scarf over my head. On arrival in Gaza I was disturbed that the Hamas leaders I met would never look me in the eye. To them, it was indecent even to glance at a member of the inferior sex. All their answers were directed at my boyfriend, who was taking pictures. But they were co-operative and eager for publicity.

We were taken upstairs in a mosque and, to my shock, were introduced to a dozen or more would-be suicide bombers in their mid-teens, who declared their fervent wish to martyr themselves for their cause.

At the time, there had been no suicide bombs in Israel. Some Hezbollah members in Lebanon had blown themselves up, but they were Shi’ite Muslims: Palestinian Sunnis were not supposed to go in for that sort of thing. Yet here I was, looking at a bunch of boys with kaffirs masking their faces, brandishing knives and practising karate in a place of worship. These weren’t boy scouts in a church hall; they were being trained to become fanatical killers by their religious elders.

When I heard the other week that Cat Stevens had been refused entry to America, I thought good riddance."

This was the same tactic the SPLC used to wipe out the Aryan Nation - if you can't get them thrown in jail, do the next best thing, destroy them financially.
What wonderful news!

EXCELLENT - this is the way to go Bro! It is easy enough for Terrorists to recruit brainwashed teenagers to carry out their plans - poor Muslims are expendable in the service of Allah - but a different matter when the murderers have to pay compensation to their victims.
WATERDRAGON 52 Most informative, please SEND this to BBC and Guardian.

Morgane:

Sarah Baxter's column appeared in the London (UK) Times, not London, Ont. Canada so I'm sure the BBC and Guardian media trackers saw it, but would rather not confuse their loyal followers by providing an opposing view.

The Nazi roots of today's Jihad:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/index.htm

Too bad that the petrobillionaires windfall profits can't be tapped for to compensate the victims. Allegedly the revenue equivalent hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil are dedicated by Saudi Arabia alone for the "furtherance of Islam." How much goes to jihadist activities can't be known, but terror activity increased following the Oil Embargo. Do the math for yourself, and the jihadists have a ton of money at their disposal. Their enablers should be tapped to compensate the victims.

oops. petrobillionaires should be petrobillionaires'

I saw the news on TV where Bush patted one of those Saudi “petrobillionaire” on the back and declared - - “These are our friends.”Is it a good thing I don’t believe everything in the news or on TV? Hmmmmm - makes a person wonder who is the fastest one to stab the other in the back? Oh well, time will tell. In the meantime, another good weapon to use - sue them to death - Go For It!!

Sue the bastards!

Sue their ass into the ground! That's the American way... The least we can hope fgor is that our anglo-saxon brotehrs in arms (UK and Australia) will wilfully join in this new coalition of the willing...

It's time to make Islam pay for all the harm and injustice it has inflicted on others,charities stop being charities when they fund the killing of infidels.

Once the Iraq issue is over I say we pull back the troops to protect America and if the Arabs want to slaughter each other then that saves us allot of money and lost lives. France can drop dead and let their own people die for freedom,if they don't want an Islamic State then fight to stop it with your own blood.
Muslims scream about interfearing in the
issues of Muslim countries when ther's awar that needs to stop,but now they scream about the lack of help in Africa becasue it's muslims being kill in civil war.
You just can't win so why waste out soldiers on people that will do what their doing in Holland to the Dutch.

What is wrong with making people pay for murder?
the financial terror people need to pay. and maybe Bush And family how have made a lot of money from the mideast also need to pay.

Using the American, and other, legal systems to take away their money is one of the very best things that can be done. But the American government prevented those held hostage by the Islamic Republic of Iran from collecting from the Iranian assets seized -- this was foolish. Others who have sued, either because they were captives, or the relatives of those who were killed in other terrorist attacks, found that the American government attempted to prevent such suits from going forth, or prevented plaintiffs who were successful from collecting. This makes -- this made -- no sense.

And there are still other categories of people who should be made to disgorge their ill-gotten gains. I am thinking of a number of ex-diplomats to certain Arab states, and even ex-C.I.A. agents, who promptly capitalized and became, immediately upon retirement from government service (and in the case of some, such as Raymond Close, former C.I.A. station chief in Jiddah, the retirment was taken early, so that he could go into business with two Saudis, and ended up in the B.C.C.I. business, not to mention much else).

Well, those people are all living lives in which they remain uninvestigated and untouched. Why? Surely if Congress wishes to truly follow every lead to "find out how 9/11 could happen" then they must find out who has been misleading us, all these years, about the nature of Saudi Arabia -- J. B. Kelly, in Washingtion at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1980s, met some of these hirelings and immediately took their measure. He had known their type, out in the Gulf, for years -- fixers, pimps, propagandists for the Arabs -- oh, they did all sorts of jobs.

They have to be exposed, and their reports -- when they were still supposedly working for the American government (not now, when they are "working" for thinks that have words like "National Interest" ostentatiously in the title) -- have to be examined. Wouldn't you like to know what James Akins did to warn about the effect of OPEC, or about Saudi malevolence, and about Wahhabism that ensured that no reliance on Saudi "goodwill" would lead to a cap on oil prices, and that such a silly belief would in fact only prevent the sensible measures which (such as a steady incremental rise in the tax on gasoline) could have saved the oil-consuming nations 1-2 trillion dollars, through the recapturee of oligopolistic rents that OPEC otherwise was able to charge? And don't we want to find out what exactly Raymond Close reported, from 1970 to 1977, when he was supposedly working for the C.I.A., not for the Saudis -- don't we want to find out what it was our government was led to believe, and had it not been for 9/11 and the past three years of intensive focus on the malign ideology and behavior of Saudi Arabia, would no doubt still believe?

Let that be investigated; let all those on the Arab payroll, directly or indirectly, be forced to disgorge their traitorous (not just to this country, but to the entire Infidel world) and ill-gotten gains.

And one more thing. The staggering wealth stolen by the Al-Saud family from the inhabitants of Arabia (one hesitates to call it, after that family, "Saudi" Arabia) has been put into sorts of illiquid as well as liquid assets. The notion that because this or that princeling is said to "own" a Plantagenet hunting-lodge, or an estate in the Home Counties, or a flat that could flatten the Taj Mahal on the Avenue Foch, or a villa in Mougins or Villefranche, should not permit those "private" properties from beign subject to seizure if, and when, the governments of the Infidel world realize that they are at war, or rather, that war is being made on them, and one of the most effective weapons of the Jihad are the mosques and madrasas that Saudi Arabia, Inc., regarded as a single corporate entity, funds. And the properties that have been bought with "Saudi" money (even if the Al-Sauds got their hands on it, and pretended it belonged to them) should lead to a wilingness to take back all those properties, from Marbella to those ski lodges in Aspen that, one suspects, Prince Bandar will not be having quite the time of it he once did, even blowing up a mountain because it spoiled his view.

This is a very promising start,and hopefuly the law suit will put islam in the spot light,it will bring people to know and understand the murderous core if the islamic doctrine.
Also,the new attorney general nominated by the president,will hopefuly make the whole process easier,without interference from liberal federal judges.

Hey I just heard, Arafat is DEAD!! :-)

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=243700

Na na na na, Na na na na, Hey hey hey, good bye...

Charities Schmerities: It's pretty nasty how they twisted the basically decent concept of charity and turned it into a supply line for violence and madrassas.

I know this isn't really the topic, but How much Islamic charity is spent outside of islamic communities? How much Infidel charity is accepted by Islamic communities? Can they take infidel money but not give to help infidels?

Another thing that bugs me is the concept of the 'Red Crescent'
Why should the 'Red Cross' have to give up their identity just to dispense aid. Is the Red Crescent islamic or is it just a facade so they can accept help but maintain their precious pride.

Thanks Hugh,
I'm sure a mass of money is used to sustain an arab/islamic semi-control over our information flow, both to our publics and our governments.

dby,

How right you are! Arab Islamic money and investment/ownership in many/most of the American media outlets is what causes the dichotomy between the views expressed of most of the media and that of the public.

Unfortunately the constant stream of propaganda favoring the Saudi Islamic line drummed into the minds of viewers and readers does have an effect. Most people in the United States are not aware of the insidious invasion of Islam into this country and less so of its grip on the countries of Europe.

The so-called "liberal" media might be less proponents of their own liberal ideology than promoting the Saudi-Islamic agenda that is dictating their editorial policies. Having found a receptive ear on the Left--crying for the "Palestinians," bashing Bush's Iraq war, extending a hand towards the Islamic world, etc.--the Saudi propagandists are using it in their drive to make the country receptive to Islamic inroads.

There is nothing more diametrically opposed to liberalism than Islam. Free thought, enlightened opinion based on inquiry, the right to happiness, etc. etc. are some of the many liberal traditions that have influenced my outlook.

I could not practice my liberal outlook in a world controlled by Islam. I wish this was more widely recognized. I have a liberal point of view, but I absolutely DO NOT agree with the media giving Islam and the Saudis a break. Unicorn is right when he says our media is being suckered into supporting Islam.

My children and (future) grandchildren deserve the opportunity to participate in a free and open society. Any liberal would agree with this. Why can't most of them see the danger??

"Judge: Islamic Charities Liable in Death"

Better still throw all those liable in jail, throw away the key and then take all their money. Money is good for sure, but I want them to get REAL justice. I don't like people buying themsleves out of their criminal actions.

If these charities leaders did something that they knew would lead to the death of an innocent human being then compensation to the victims should be paid for sure and THEN justice should be done. Gaddafi bought himself out of his criminal terrorist crimes by paying his victims with millions that he didn't even earn in the first place. Gee...he must be suffering real bad.

Nothing makes me sicker than seeing european leaders gleefully shaking hands with this guy...he paid compensation but he is still a mass murderer! Ted Bundy killed far less numbers of people/innocents than Gaddafi for heavens sake! If Bundy was alive and could pay his victims compensation should our leaders be shaking his hands and calling him budddy?

America's Old Media should be held accountable next.

OBL R US:

If a young, female Brit reporter could be made privvy to the fact that young Hamas recruits were being groomed for "martyrdom operations", how likely/unlikely is it that anyone raising money or operating these "charities" could be unaware of where at least some of the money is going?

I'd say it's highly unlikely they wouldn't know -- they'd actually have to go to some pains to avoid knowing.