The UN's ties to the global jihad may have involved more than just condemnations of Israel and glorification of terrorists. From FoxNews, with thanks to Olivia:
NEW YORK — The scandal engulfing the United Nations Procurement Department now appears to be bottomless. It also shows signs of growing more sinister, especially where it involves a mysterious private company called IHC Services, which did big business with the procurement department until it was removed from U.N. rosters in June.New details of how dark the scandal could prove to be have emerged from the private sale of IHC on June 3, 2005, just as the procurement scandal was about to break. It now appears that while doing business with the U.N., IHC had links both to Saddam Hussein’s old sanctions-busting networks, and to a Liechtenstein-based businessman, Engelbert Schreiber, Jr., known among other things for his ties to a figure designated by the U.N. itself as a financier of Al Qaeda.
This is part of an extremely Complex web of subversive financial dealings going back to WW2 involving amongst many, the Al taqwa(fear of God) bank, the bank believed by many experts to be a major financier of such terrorism as the 911 WTC outrage.
Francois Genoux( who financed the Klaus Barbie defence) and Achmed Huber( a swiss german convert and financier for the Muslim brotherhood) are two of the main characters, both neo nazi antisemites
http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=10541
http://www.oraclesyndicate.org/pub_e/k.coo_e/publ_05-02_1.htm
Genoud commited suicide when the Swiss under pressure from the Americans finally started to close in on him.
He was one of the few men to have met and admired both Adolf Hitler and Al Hussieni, the notorious Grand mufti of Jerusalem appointed by the British against the wishes of the muslim clerics at the time.
Lawyers will make subtle cases for and against, but as a layman I see complicity in if not plain conspiracy to commit murder in the Rosett story. So, we sit back and let clever journalists and the police do their work. Then come the accountants and the lawyers. That's the price we willingly pay for a legal system based on reason rather than revelation or privilege. Some of us will die because of the nature of the system but from a utilitarian stance it makes better law.
Having stated that, we are not under any obligation to obey illegitimate laws or laws of illegitimate states, laws that do not conform to our own sense of morality. For example, one might be required to murder an apostate from Islam in a Muslim country, but we, not being Muslim, and not being murderers, do not have that obligation even in a Muslim state even if it were required of us. In fact,we would be required as rational people to save the apostate from a miscarriage of justice under our own sense of reason and from own traditions of law.
Muslims seem not to be bound by positive law, feeling instead bound by revealed law. Not breaking the man-made law if seen to be contemptable if sharia laws requires the breaking. Worse, the breaking of the Western Code is laudable if it furthers sharia adherence. For the non-Muslim, sharia is irrelevant. For the Muslim it is everything. For us, prudence, if nothing else, prevents us from breaking the positve laws. For us, obeying the law is no reward but a lack of penalty. Killing a man for the sake of paradisical virgins isn't a great motivator in our lives. Neither, it seems, is anything else beyond our daily bread and comfort. We therefore are passive non-law-breakers, while our Muslim cousins are active law-abiders.
Can we find a reasonable compromise? In ourselves. can we find a way to obey our own laws and still actively pursue the good aggressively without the sanction of the legitimate state? In short, the question is, can we work legitimately as combatants outside the rule of Western law?
I'll risk this: that we can act as legitimate if non-legal combatants in illegitimate states if we maintain our own legal standards given the conditions of war. For example, in the Balkans there is still great opportunity to wage war against Islam on a personal basis. In FYROM there is little recognizable legitimacy in areas held by force by Muslims. Just war is possible there for such as us. We owe nothing to the FYROM government, such as it is, and we owe only war to our enemies as we might find there. Within the bounds of justice and morality we are free to do as we will if we can.
When the law is illegitimate, then obeying it is criminal. We who are not there do not face that dilemma. And if we go there we put ourselves in the deliberate postiion of having to react justly if illegally. What do we do? We can stay at home and type or we can continue travelling and risking our safety, our freedom, and our morality. We can leave the struggle to clever journalists and the police and the accountants and the lawyers.
When the criminals are not law-breakers because of jurisdiction, i.e. if they are Muslims in Islamic lands, and if we were to become law-breakers by visiting lands Islamic for the purpose of meting out Western justice ad hoc as we might in those particular Schlyer-like cases, as we might in the cases as above, then what, other than acting rightly as extra-parliamentary oppositionists, are we doing?
If our own face a reasonable expectation of being captured by our own, then we cannot rightly interfere in the work of our legitimate authorities. However, the point I'm making here is of a criminal outside the bounds of Western justice who has little or no risk of capture: what is too be done? Should we sit back and wait for the debates between teams of subtle lawyers?
"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller Lieutenant General, USMC
Above we see the difference between heroism and homicide bombers: Heroism is an attitude based on reason, on the knowledge that one is doomed, and that one will fight bravely Because of that; whereas a suicide bomber, a so-called hero, is a menace to evryone, a mindless and dangerous fool who kills himself and endangers his mates, not to mention the reason the fighting goes on.
My point above is whether one can journey to foreign lands to legitimately fight the enemy who is there in relative safety. If, for example, the Caucasus is, in our terms, the land of war rather than the land of law, are we sanctioned to wage war against the Muslims there who while in the West wage jihad through the machinations of high finance? Is it just?
Obviously this question isn't deep for some of us; but the question needs an answer if others, those who are more interested in their relationships to the Motherland, are to find their ways to the wars. I raise this question in relation to the Spanish Civil War, during which a number of volunteers fought against the fascists without the permission of their governments. Is it legitimate? They, the brigadistas, fought on the side of a legitimate government under attack by foreign nations, Germany in particular. Can we make the same claim if we focus our energies on a nation in the geographic middle of our conflict? If no, we rely on our lawyers and accountants, on our clever journalists, our police. If yes, if we can claim that a legitimate nation is under direct threat and under direct fire from a non-state actor, an enemy without legitimacy, then we can begin the organizing of a party of the just, as it were. Then we could fight and win, and let them come from all sides.