Recently in claiming victim status Category

Not wasting a second to claim victim status. "Somali reaction to al-Shabab sentences mixed," by Amy Forliti for the Associated Press, May 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

MINNEAPOLIS - Wide-ranging sentences handed down in the yearslong federal investigation into recruiting and financing for the terrorist group al-Shabab have kindled a mix of outrage, confusion and relief among members of Minnesota's large Somali community.

Some say the 10- and 20-year prison sentences for two Minnesota women who sent money to the group were too harsh, especially since two men who traveled to Somalia and joined al-Shabab got three years. The attorney for one man sentenced to 20 years in prison has already filed a notice of appeal; more are expected.

But others say justice has been served, and authorities said the nine penalties doled out last week show that those who support terrorism will be held accountable....

Prosecutors have said the men and women were part of a "deadly pipeline," sending money and men to al-Shabab, which the U.S. government has designated a terrorist organization for its links to al-Qaida and its tactics that include suicide bombings and assassinations. At least 22 men left Minnesota for Somalia since 2007 in what has been called one of the largest efforts to recruit U.S. fighters for a foreign terrorist organization.

Authorities say the conspiracy began in 2007, when small groups of Somali men began holding secret meetings about returning to their homeland to wage jihad against Ethiopians. Ethiopian troops had been brought into Somalia a year earlier by its U.N.-backed government, but many Somalis viewed them as invaders.

That sentiment came up often during the hearings, as Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis gave each defendant unlimited time to say whatever he or she wanted. Davis also asked family and community members to speak, and asked defendants about their time in Somalia and refugee camps.

Hassan Mohamud, the imam at a St. Paul mosque, commended Davis for that approach.

But Mohamud was among several people outraged after two women — Amina Farah Ali and Hawo Mohamed Hassan — received sentences of 20 and 10 years. Ali and Hassan had gone door-to-door, saying they were raising money for charity; they were convicted of funneling funds to al-Shabab.

"They didn't go back home. They didn't kill anyone. They just helped with the poor people," said Abdiwali Warsame, a St. Paul Somali who was interviewed outside the courthouse. He called the women's sentences an "injustice."

They were funding jihad terror, but Warsame hopes you forget about that inconvenient fact.

Three men who traveled to Somalia and pleaded guilty to terror-related charges received lower sentences after cooperating with authorities. Two received three-year prison stints; a third who stayed and fought alongside al-Shabab then lied to the FBI got 10 years. One man who admitted helping recruits obtain plane tickets — but was later characterized as a leader in recruitment efforts — received 12 years.

Last week's sentences are in line with other al-Shabab-related cases. In New Jersey, two men arrested while trying to board flights to Somalia for a jihad were sentenced to 22 and 20 years in prison. A southern California woman received eight years for sending money to Minnesota men in Somalia, while a Missouri man received more than 11 years for funding al-Shabab....

Others raised concerns about potential bias after Davis questioned Ali and Hassan about whether they supported suicide bombings and Sharia law, and asked Hassan about her traditional dress. That led some Somalis to say Islam was under attack.

It also prompted the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations to announce Friday that it will file a complaint against Davis, for allegedly linking mainstream Islamic principles with terrorism. Davis does not speak about court cases. His office referred The Associated Press to the court record....

The aptly-named professor Hatem Bazian some years ago called for an "intifada" in the U.S. Here, he completely ignores the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers were Muslims acting, in their own words, in the defense of Islam. He offers no action on the part of Muslim communities in the U.S. to prevent other young Muslims from getting the idea that murdering Infidels is a way to defend Islam. Instead, as one would expect from a charter member of the "Islamophobia" propaganda industry, he equates the Tsarnaevs' murders, which he calls "horrific crimes," with those who spoke accurately about what motivated those murders, whom he accuses of "crimes against our collective consciousness."

It is amazing that moral cretins like Hatem Bazian occupy comfortable positions at respected universities in the United States, but such is the state of academia today. In a field populated with people like Omid Safi, Haroon Moghul, and Caner K. Dagli, Bazian actually comes off rather well.

From "Boston Bombing, Islamophobia and Sudden Ignorance Syndrome," by Dr. Hatem Bazian, Director of the Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project at UC Berkeley Center for Race and Gender, n.d.:

Let me be absolutely clear. Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed horrific crimes, ones that took the lives of three individuals, shattered dozens, and left the City of Boston in fear. But the Islamophobic machine committed crimes against our collective consciousness by exploiting the suffering and pain of our fellow citizens. Their words became a powerful incendiary to inflame the minds of an already panicked people.

If the judge's head had still been in the sand, you see, he would have been more lenient toward her sweet boy the would-be jihad murderer. "Mother of North Bergen terrorist outraged son sentenced day of Boston Marathon bombing," by Michaelangelo Conte for The Jersey Journal, May 8 (thanks to Kenneth):

The mother of the North Bergen man serving 22 years on terrorism-related charges told The Jersey Journal Tuesday that she feels her son's sentencing 10 minutes after the Boston Marathon bombing led to an injustice.

"It was at the same time, the same minutes," Nadia Alessa, 53, said at her North Bergen home of the sentencing of her son, Mohamed Alessa, 23, who is in a federal correctional facility in Brooklyn.

"I don't think the judge had any mercy in his heart," Nadia Alessa said of U.S. District Judge Dickinson Debevoise who also sentenced her son's codefendant, Carlos Almonte, 27, of Elmwood Park, on April 15 in Newark to 20 years in prison. "There was no mercy. If he had mercy, not even for my son, for me ... I don't have anyone but him."

Alessa said killers receive sentences as severe as her son and she said he hurt no one.
"In court they said 'Mohamed said to Carlos. Carlos said to Mohamed.' They never said 'Mohamed did.' They never said 'Carlos did,'" the mother said.

The pair were arrested at JFK International Airport in 2010 as they were about to board separate flights to Egypt and they pleaded guilty in 2011 to conspiring to join an armed Islamic group in Somalia with ties to al-Qaida.

At a press conference after the guilty pleas, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman said, "Their aim was to murder people with beliefs not aligned with their own extremist philosophy ... They wanted to commit violence on non-believers."...

Poster distributed by a California chapter of Hamas-linked CAIR

"We have been informed that the FBI may be starting to question some of the community members about the two suspects. Insha'Allah we want to help as much as we can, but of course not put ourselves at risk either." This unsigned email from the ISB could have told members to cooperate fully. Instead, it fosters the victim mindset by telling them to contact the ACLU and lawyer up. Why? What do they have to hide? Innocent people should be able to talk to investigators without any problem.

"EMAIL: Islamic Society of Boston Tells Members to Call ACLU," from Breitbart News, April 25 (thanks to CGW):

Breitbart News has obtained an email sent from the Islamic Society of Boston to its members earlier this week. The email instructs members to "know their rights" and contact the ACLU for representation, while mentioning that "we want to help as much as we can, but..."

The Islamic Society of Boston was the mosque where Tamaerlan Tsarnaev was known to worship. Tsarnaev made two inappropriate outbursts during sermons at the ISB, but returned shortly after.

From: Islamic Society of Boston [mailto:XXXXXXXX@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:43 PM
To: XXXXXXXX@masboston.org
Subject: [boston-net] Fwd: lawyers

Assalamu Alaikum brothers and sisters,

We have been informed that the FBI may be starting to question some of the community members about the two suspects. Insha'Allah we want to help as much as we can, but of course not put ourselves at risk either. Seeking representation does not imply any guilt on your part but is simply a way of protecting your own rights. Please do not hesitate to use the information listed below or contact the ISB Cambridge Mosque for any other resources.

Jazak Allah Khair
Islamic Society of Boston

If you get contacted by the FBI, please know your rights.
You have the right to legal representation.
Please contact the ACLU – they have lawyers in the legal department who are present and ready to talk to you.
ACLU phone number 617 482 3170
Legal Department: Ext: 323 or 318

You know what would work even better than the large-scale propaganda effort they envision, which is already in full swing anyway? Stop blowing things up. Stop killing people in the name of Islam. Work against those who do, instead of closing ranks and blaming non-Muslims for being concerned about this. And your public image will improve dramatically.

"Profs. say say education, media could combat Islamic stereotypes," by Rachel Riley for the Daily Free Press, April 25 (thanks to Kaddafi Delenda Est):

In light of news that the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings were from predominantly Islamic Chechnya, students and professors at Boston University said U.S. citizens should not create harmful generalizations about the Muslim community and violence.

“Violence doesn’t necessarily belong to Muslim extremism any more than it belongs to any other form of extreme behavior,” said College of Fine Arts professor André de Quadros, a member of the Institute for the Study of Muslim Societies and Civilizations. “We, in this country, are victims of violence even to people who are not Muslim.”

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the two suspects, has been described as an Islamic extremist by various media outlets in the days following the attacks. Tamerlan, who was killed after a shootout with police in Watertown, was the older brother of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is now in police custody.

The relationship between extremist Islam and violence is a complex one, and as such, students must be wary of jumping to conclusions, Quadros said.

“The most dangerous thing that can happen is, once again, that Muslim students, that Muslim peace-loving people, are targeted for hate or exclusion,” he said.

Religion professor Kecia Ali said generalizations that equate the Muslim community with violence stem from the urgency of Americans to understand the attack on Boston on April 15.

“People want to make sense,” Ali said. “When one looks for explanations, simple explanations are often the most compelling.”

She said the media has focused on terrorist events associated with Islam, such as the Tsarnaev brothers’ alleged association with Islam, and other instances of mass violence in America, such as the Colorado theater massacre in July and the Newtown shootings in December.

Ali said since the Marathon bombings, students on campus have had conversations about the way society views violence in America.

“Just as after 9/11, just as in the wake of the Park 51 controversy about building a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center, there are people on campus who are engaged in ongoing dialogue,” she said.

The most powerful tool students have in combatting stereotypes, particularly those directed toward members of the Muslim community, is caution in how they make associations and ask questions, Ali said.

“It’s not necessarily about the answers we give to questions — it’s about the questions we choose to ask and the connections we choose to draw,” she said.

Although she said she does not know exactly how Muslim students on campus are directly affected by prejudices against Islam, Ali said many student groups fight against stereotyping by supporting religious tolerance.

“At BU, student organizations such as the Interfaith Council and others have been really integral to starting ongoing dialogues about integration, coexistence, commonalities, difference and the ways in which religious students from a variety of religious traditions have things in common,” she said.

Ahmet Selim, a sixth-year Graduate School of Arts and Sciences student who identifies as Muslim, said it is not uncommon to see unfair reporting of the brothers’ association with Islam, even in the mainstream media.

“We are seeing an immediate spike in identification of all of American Muslims … as somehow guilty [of the bombing],” Selim said.

Stereotyping can be combated through media and education, he said.

“Muslim organizations … have programs to reach out to the larger public to rectify misunderstandings about Islam and emphasize the point that these radical types are basically the minority,” he said. “But, it is also a civic duty for everyone to stand against hate speech toward American Muslims.”

Instead of reaching out to the larger community, reach out to the Muslims who are getting the idea that Islamic teaches violence, and change their minds.

She certainly has perfected the victimhood pose that we see so often from Islamic supremacists. "'It wasn't blood... it was PAINT': Boston bombers' defiant mother launches bizarre defense of her 'framed' sons," by Lydia Warren and Louise Boyle for the Daily Mail, April 25 (thanks to Inexion):

The mother of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects ranted that her sons were being framed for the terrorist attack, describing the scene of carnage as a 'really big play' with 'paint instead of blood'.

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva was on the verge of hysteria when she told a press conference on Thursday that she does not accept that her sons carried out the attacks in Boston on April 15 which left three people dead and 264 injured.

She gestured wildly, making a gesture of her hands being cuffed, as she sat alongside her husband Anzor. She said that she regretted living in the U.S.

Tsarnaeva added: 'America took my kids away from me. I’m sure my kids were not involved in anything.'

Tsarnaeva earlier told CNN that she believed that the Boston marathon atrocity was a 'really big play' with 'paint instead of blood'.

The father of the suspected bombers Anzor Tsarnaev told the same press conference that he would travel from Russia to the United States to bury his elder son.

The parents sat side by side in the southern Russian city of Makhachkala and denied their sons had planted the bombs at the Boston marathon, saying they had been framed.

Their other son Dzhokhar, 19, remains under police guard in a Boston hospital and is facing terrorism charges which could result in the death penalty.

Banging the table in front of him, Anzor said: 'I am going to the United States. I want to say that I am going there to see my son, to bury the older one.

'I don't have any bad intentions. I don't plan to blow up anything.

'I am not angry at anyone. I want to go find out the truth,' said Anzor, who took off his sunglasses only when photographers asked him to.

He said he would go as soon as possible but that he had not yet bought a plane ticket.

Tsarnaeva said she was still thinking over whether to travel to the U.S. Her hesitation to travel may be based on the fact that she was charged with shoplifting last summer and is concerned that she could be arrested.

However Tsarnaeva said that she had been assured by lawyers that she would not be.

The Tsarnaev family emigrated to the U.S. a decade ago, but both parents returned to Russia last year.

Zubeidat also described a figure known only as 'Misha' - who has been pinpointed as a source of radicalization for her son Tamerlan.

She said that he was a 'very nice man', of Armenian origin and living in Boston. 'Misha' is also apparently a convert to the Islamic faith.

It is almost a week since the Boston bombers' reign of terror came to an end.

The suspects' father has already been interviewed by Russian and American authorities - and will face further interviews when he arrives in the U.S.

Speaking out on Wednesday, Mrs Tsarnaeva launched into a bizarre rant in which she claims she does not care if she or her youngest son are killed by U.S. authorities.

Their eldest son, Tamerlan, 26, died after a shootout with police in Watertown, Massachusetts last Friday, while her youngest, Dzhokhar, 19, is in hospital recovering from a bullet wound to the neck.

'If they are going to kill him, I don't care,' she told CNN of Dzhokhar.

'My oldest one is killed, so I don't care. I don't care is my youngest one is going to be killed today. I want the world to hear this. And I don't care if I am going to get killed too. And I will say Allahu akbar!'

While Dzhokhar was reportedly injured from a self-inflicted gun shot wound as he sought to hide from police in a boat parked in a backyard, his mother said she does not believe this account.

'You know what I think? I think now they will try to make my Dzhokhar guilty because they took away his voice, his ability to talk to the world... They did not want the truth to come out.'

She added that the only reason her sons were targeted was because they were Muslim, adding that she saw footage of Tamerlan being killed 'really cruelly.'

U.S. authorities are on their way to speak with Zubeidat Tsarnaeva in the aftermath of the bombings....

This always happens: every time there is a jihad terror attack or foiled plot, the mainstream media fills up with stories about Muslims worrying about a "backlash." The "backlash" never materializes. In reality, the stream of stories about fears of "backlash" are designed to deflect attention away from the jihad attack and onto Muslims as victims, who as victims ought to be exempt from scrutiny and accountability (even though no U.S. mosque or Islamic school has any program designed to teach against the al-Qaeda version of Islam that they ostensibly reject). In reality, as David J. Rusin noted in National Review last January, "a detailed analysis of FBI statistics covering ten full calendar years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks reveals that, on a per capita basis, American Muslims, contrary to spin, have been subjected to hate crimes less often than other prominent minorities. From 2002 to 2011, Muslims are estimated to have suffered hate crimes at a frequency of 6.0 incidents per 100,000 per year – 10 percent lower than blacks (6.7), 48 percent lower than homosexuals and bisexuals (11.5), and 59 percent lower than Jews (14.8). Americans should keep these numbers in mind whenever Islamists attempt to silence critics by invoking Muslim victimhood."

No victimization of even one innocent person is ever acceptable. These "backlash" stories are just tools in the hands of Islamic supremacists, which they use once again to evade any responsibility to clean up their communities and stop the spread of the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism.

And note the author of this piece: none other than Manya Brachear, who is ever ready to enable Islamic supremacists. Brachear doesn't mention (of course) that Ahmed Rehab is an operative of a Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood group that has had several of its officials convicted of jihad terror activity. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR's cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. Its California chapter distributed posters telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI. CAIR has opposed every anti-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented.

"Muslims guard against backlash," by Manya A. Brachear for the Chicago Tribune, April 19 (thanks to Kapil):

The [Hamas-linked] Council on American Islamic Relations again offered sympathy to victims of the Boston Marathon bombing on Friday, but added a plea for Americans not to generalize and conclude that Muslim teachings influenced the suspect in any way.

"Our focus is primarily on the victims," said Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago chapter at a press conference Friday afternoon. "We don't want to be drawn into defending ourselves."

Citing acts of violence in Boston and New York, Rehab blamed Islamophobic forces for inciting hate crimes. He said that phenomenon poses a bigger threat than "innocently ignorant individuals."

Pointing to the Jewish leader and pastor by his side at the news conference, he said Muslims have discovered a powerful source of support since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"Friends of Muslims are emerging as a great force in America," he said. "American people are fed up with the dumbing down of America."

If that is so, then you must be on your way out, Ahmed.

The statement is no surprise. As we have seen many, many times over the years at Jihad Watch, Islamic supremacists never, ever take responsibility for their own actions, and often (as here) blame them on their victims.

"Egypt presidential aide blames Christians for cathedral attack, sparks fury," from Al Arabiya, April 10 (thanks to David):

A statement on Tuesday by an Egyptian presidential aide accusing Christian Copts of being the cause of Monday’s clashes near Cairo’s Abbasiya Cathedral has caused public outrage.

Issam al-Hadad, the president’s assistant on foreign affairs, published the statement on Facebook, saying that during a funeral of Christians on Monday, some angry mourners attacked passing cars.

This led some people near the cathedral to open fire and throw rocks, which escalated into an exchange of gunfire, he added.

Clashes broke out on Monday between Muslims and Christians during a funeral of four Christians killed in sectarian violence the day before in the town of al-Khsoos. Monday’s clashes killed two and injured 89, security officials said.

Presidency repudiates statement

A meeting was held Tuesday between presidential and cathedral delegates to discuss the recent clashes, during which the presidential delegation repudiated Hadad’s statement, saying it only expressed his personal opinion.

“Issuing statements that are then denied by the presidency clearly shows confusion in presidential performance,” said Egyptian journalist Abdullah al-Sinawi....

Indeed.

But remember: to oppose these vicious and vile anti-Semites would be "hateful."

"This Blood Libel Brought to You by the West," by Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, April 1 (thanks to Henry):

Following a rash of criticism from U.S. Jewish groups, a Palestinian nonprofit funded by Western governments has apologized for accusing Jewish people of using “Christian blood” during the Passover holiday.

Miftah, a Palestinian nonprofit group founded by Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian lawmaker, said Monday it regrets publishing an article on its website accusing “the Jews [of using] the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover.”

Miftah had refused to apologize for the article last week, instead lashing out at pro-Israel bloggers who highlighted the offensive article.

The article, which has since been removed from Miftah’s website, sparked outrage among Jewish leaders and others who condemned the Western-backed nonprofit for perpetuating an anti-Semitic blood libel.

Miftah has largely received its funding from Western organizations and governments, including U.S. taxpayer-backed National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Ford Foundation, the United Nations, and several European governments.

The original article had criticized President Barack Obama for praising the Jewish holiday of Passover, which marks the Jewish people’s freedom from slavery in Egypt.

“Does Obama in fact know the relationship, for example, between ‘Passover’ and ‘Christian blood’..?!” said the article, which was first found and publicized by the pro-Israel Elder of Ziyon blog. “Or ‘Passover’ and ‘Jewish blood rituals?!’”

“Much of the chatter and gossip about historical Jewish blood rituals in Europe are real and not fake as they claim; the Jews used the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover,” the article continued.

Miftah at first defended its right to post the article in a statement titled, “MIFTAH denounces smear campaign against it.”

“The obscure pro-Israeli website ‘The Elder of Ziyon’ has wrongly accused MIFTAH and Dr. Ashrawi of promoting Jewish blood libel during Passover through its publication of an Arabic-language article that briefly addressed the subject,” the defense stated.

The article was about promoting dialogue, Miftah maintained.

Hah. "Dialogue." Indeed. How apt. "Dialogue" usually is supremacist denigration of the other masked with deception.

What race is jihad terror against innocent civilians again? I keep forgetting. What race are Islamic supremacist attempts to subjugate non-Muslims under the Sharia? I always forget that one, too.

If the ENAR really wants to end "Islamophobia," here's how. They can call upon Muslim individuals and groups to:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively, sincerely, honestly, and in deeds, not just in comforting words, not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace Western constitutions (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that non-Muslim civilians, including Israelis, are innocent people, teaching accordingly in mosques and Islamic schools, and behaving in accord with these new teachings.
3. Teach, again sincerely and honestly, in transparent and verifiable ways in mosques and Islamic schools, the imperative of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis, and act accordingly.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach sincerely against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively and honestly work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! "Islamophobia" will evanesce!

"ENAR Urges EU Institutions To Recognise Islamophobia As A Form Of Racism," from Bernama, March 26:

KUALA LUMPUR, March 26 (Bernama) -- The European Network Against Racism (ENAR) has called on European Union (EU) institutions to recognise Islamophobia as a specific form of racism.

The call was made following ENAR's first of its kind pan-European qualitative survey of Islamophobia, which showed that discrimination against Muslims in Europe is widespread.

Muslims continued to experience discrimination in a range of areas, more specifically in employment, education, and access to goods and services, said ENAR, which represents EU-wide network of non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

According to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the ENAR study showed that Muslim women and girls are the most affected and face double discrimination on the basis of both their religion and their gender.

The report also highlighted an increase in hatred against Muslims in Europe manifesting itself as opposition to as well as protests against the building of mosques and damage to Islamic places of worship.

An uninhibited form of racism has also emerged, using freedom of expression and 'white victimhood' as justifications for promoting exclusion and discrimination, according to the report.

OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu concurred with the call made by ENAR, saying that "this is what we have been saying for a long time, that Islamophobia should be recognised as a form of racism and dealt with accordingly".

He said Western leaders need to recognise Islamophobia as a threat to peaceful coexistence and understanding among people.

The OIC has just released its fifth Islamophobia Report, which indicates the rising trends in some national policies, laws, and administrative measures that stigmatise Muslims.

Another fabricated atrocity

Will the many, many mainstream media outlets that reported that Jihad Misharawi's son was killed by the Israelis run retractions and apologies? Don't hold your breath.

"UN Reports the Truth: Hamas Killed BBC Reporter's Baby in Gaza," by Chana Ya'ar for Israel National News, March 10 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

The United Nations has issued a report with unusual courage and accuracy that plainly tells the tale of Israel’s Pillar of Defense counter terror operation – and exposes the lies of Hamas, told to a grieving father and his BBC bureau chief.

In what has become typical of international media, The Washington Post and a BBC bureau chief last November accused and convicted the Israel Defense Forces in a heartrending, angry piece without verifying their information after a fellow editor in Gaza lost his baby son in rocket fire that struck his home.

The front page photo of an Arab stringer for a world-class news network, clutching his dead baby son in his arms, tears running down his cheeks, became a powerful icon of the tragedy of the conflict.

It was used by Hamas as propaganda to blacken Israel’s name in the media and politically in the international arena as it fought to defend its southern population against Gaza’s missile fire.

But apparently very few questioned the source of the rocket fire – certainly not the grieving father, Jihad Misharawi, who at his son’s funeral blamed “the Jews” – nor did BBC Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar, who came to Gaza to support his colleague, or The Washington Post, which printed the story, written by Max Fisher and "foreign staff", with photos, published on the front page.

Photos of the damaged home were duly posted, along with a photo of the little child, who is indeed beautiful, and the heartbreaking photo of a grieving father carrying what appears to be his dead son wrapped in shrouds.

“An Israeli round hit Misharawi’s four-room home in Gaza Wednesday, killing his son, according to BBC Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar, who arrived in Gaza earlier that Thursday,” Fisher reported in his article along with the paper’s “foreign staff” on November 15. “Misharawi’s sister-in-law was also killed, and his brother wounded. Misharawi told Danahar that, when the round landed, there was no fighting in his residential neighborhood.

“We’re all one team in Gaza,” Danahar told me,” Fisher wrote, “saying that Misharawi is a BBC video and photo editor. After spending a ‘few hours’ with his grieving colleague, he wrote on Twitter, ‘Question asked here is: If Israel can kill a man riding on a moving motorbike (as they did last month), how did Jihad’s son get killed.”

Answer: Jihad’s son was killed by Hamas, according to independent investigators from the United Nations. He was murdered by the journalist’s own neighbors, the very men who purport to be his biggest protectors, who live in the surrounding buildings in the city where he lives.

According to the advanced version of its report released by the U.N. Human Rights Council released late last week, “On 14 November, a woman, her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult in Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.”

A footnote to the section says the case was personally investigated by the U.N. OHCHR, and that investigators believe the attack emanated from Hamas.

The terrorist organization – as well as its allied terrorist groups, such as the Islamic Jihad – is well known for launching attacks against Israel from within residential areas in Gaza and maximizing the use of its human shields.

The U.N. document reveals Gaza terrorists fired more than 1,500 rockets at Israel between November 14-21, 2012. For the first time, a number of the missiles reached Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Six Israelis were killed, including four civilians, and 239 Israelis were wounded. Gaza terrorists readily admitted to aiming at civilian targets.

“While some projectiles were directed at military objectives, many, if not the vast majority of the Palestinian attacks on Israel constituted indiscriminate attacks,” noted the report. “Such attacks violate international humanitarian law".

"Most rockets fired by the armed groups did not seem to be directed at a specific military objective. Furthermore many Palestinian armed groups directly and indirectly indicated their determination to – and took responsibility for – attacks on Israeli civilians or large population centers in Israel. Such acts clearly violate international humanitarian law, namely the principle of distinction...

“Another issue of serious concern during the crisis was allegations related to rocket attacks launched by Palestinian armed groups from populated areas in Gaza...some of these rockets may have been launched from underground tunnels....eyewitnesses informed OHCHR that on two occasions rockets were launched from an area south of Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, about 100 meters from a residential area...OHCHR received first-hand information indicating that rockets were fired from areas close to civilian buildings in the east of Gaza City... about 300 meters from several residential houses.

“Launching attacks from populated areas constitutes a violation of customary rules of international humanitarian law, i.e. the obligation to take all precautions to protect civilians. By having done so, the civilian population’s exposure to the inherent dangers of the military operations taking place around them was greatly heightened.

"The real questions should be, 'Will The Washington Post print a retraction in the same location as its captivating erroneous front page article? An apology? A new photo? How will BBC bureau chief Paul Danahar respond to this U.N. report, and how to correct the erroneous reports he may have disseminated?,'" Israeli veteran journalist and Middle East analyst Hana Levi Julian pointed out.

"Just a few years ago, a BBC bureau chief was kidnapped by a Gaza terrorist organization and held hostage for nearly five months, his life hanging in the balance. By a miracle, negotiators managed to free him and his life was spared," Julian noted.

"With terrorists breathing down this news organization's neck, scrutinizing the actions of each of its local reporters, can the BBC allow itself to report objectively in Gaza?"

Does the BBC ever allow itself to report objectively?

Victimhood is big business: insofar as they can claim protected victim status for Muslims, Islamic supremacists can deflect unwanted scrutiny and any critical examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism.

That's most likely why CAIR and others have not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating "hate crimes." They want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.

"Austria: Muslims Set Fire to Own Fast-Food Business and Leave 'Racist' Graffiti to Mislead Investigators," by Cheradenine Zakalwe for Islam Versus Europe, February 24 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A couple of weeks ago a pizzeria owned by Albanian Muslims in Wörgl, Austria, was badly burned. A nearby building owned by a Turkish association was also set on fire. 'Racist' graffiti in Turkish was left on the scene, complete with swastika symbols. This immediately provoked demonstrations from Turks and Greens protesting against "right-wingers" and "racists". One placard read :

Racism isn't an opinion! Racism is a crime

It has now emerged, though, the both fires were set by the Muslims themselves. They were in dire financial circumstances and wanted the insurance payment. The 'racist' graffiti was simply left to mislead the investigators. Fortunately, two of the Muslim perps were injured in their own attack when the fire they were setting produced an explosion.

After the arson attack on a pizzeria and the premises of an association in Wörgl, the investigators have made public new details. One of the perpetrators has confessed, another is in custody. The anti-foreigner words are said to have been a diversionary tactic.

According to police, financial problems were the motive for the attack. As reported, two brothers were injured in front of the premises during the attack - an 18-year-old and 31-year-old Albanian...

"Given the upsurge in shootings across our country, we have a concern that someone who has been shooting at targets may run across someone wearing similar garb and commit an act of violence against them," said Dawud Walid of Hamas-linked CAIR. And he said of the ironically named Mr. Jihad: "He told me we're at war and we were trying to kill Usama bin Laden. I told him there are people here who may dress that way and they aren't like Usama bin Laden."

No innocent people should ever be victimized, and there is no justification for such a thing. Yet Thompson Targets, the source of the target, also sells a “Wall Street” zombie target, and yet no one is complaining to them about the possibility that someone may start shooting Wall Street bankers because of it. Certainly there are "people here who may dress that way and they aren't like Usama bin Laden," but that is true of virtually every violent group -- that there are non-violent people who may dress and act the same way. Walid's jihad here is part of Hamas-linked CAIR's larger and ongoing effort to rule out of the bounds of acceptable discourse any examination of jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, with the goal of removing all impediments to them, and of portraying Muslims as victims of unjust suspicion, so as to intimidate non-Muslims into dropping any and all counterterror efforts.

Note also that neither the local paper nor Fox bothers to mention that the Justice Department named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Nor do they mention that CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. They say nothing about the fact that several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Nor do they mention that CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements, or that its California chapter distributed posters telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI.

"Royal Oak range to stop selling target wearing Muslim attire," from the Observer & Eccentric, February 9 (thanks to Mitch):

ROYAL OAK — The owner of a gun range in Royal Oak has agreed to stop selling a specific target that depicts a skeleton with a beard dressed in traditional Muslim clothes and holding an AK-47.

Ray Jihad, owner of Target Sports on Woodward Avenue, was approached by Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, last week following a complaint from a customer who was concerned the targets sent the wrong message.

“Given the upsurge in shootings across our country, we have a concern that someone who has been shooting at targets may run across someone wearing similar garb and commit an act of violence against them,” Walid said.

Jihad said if it made Walid happy, he would stop selling the targets.

“If they are offended by it, I told him as soon as I sell out of them I will not purchase any more,” he said.

The target is sold by Thompson Targets in Ohio, which also sells a “Wall Street” zombie target and another skeleton target that is wearing a mask and holding a knife.

Walid said he spoke with them and they asked his request be sent to them in writing.

His issue is that there are Muslims around the world who are “friends of our country” and don't mean harm, but who dress a similar way.

“Would he find it acceptable if there was a target with someone wearing a hoodie and saggy jeans, because there is a small population of black and Latino youth involved in gang activity?” Walid said.

The organization is in the process of researching other retailers in the area that may be selling the target to urge them to stop.

Walid said Jihad was “extremely friendly” and understood where they were coming from, and he is hopeful other gun ranges and retailers follow suit.

And from "Muslim group appeals to gun shop to stop selling target of skeleton wearing turban," from Fox News, February 10:

"He told me we're at war and we were trying to kill Usama bin Laden. I told him there are people here who may dress that way and they aren't like Usama bin Laden," Walid told the Macomb Daily.

He passed off a 2006 photo of a young woman who was killed in Gaza as a victim of the IDF defensive action in Gaza in 2012. As Muhammad said, "war is deceit."

"UN cuts ties with official tied to false Gaza tweet," by Stewart Stogel for the Jerusalem Post, February 7 (thanks to Jan):

NEW YORK - ­ Kulhood Badawi, a veteran public affairs officer in the Jerusalem branch of the United Nations Office of the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), has been "separated" from the UN, say officials in New York.

The de facto firing, publicly explained as a contract non-renewal, comes shortly after the conclusion of an internal investigation lasting almost a year.

The investigation conducted by the UN Development Program centered on a February 2012 Twitter post containing the photograph of a dead Palestinian girl, who Badawi insisted was killed by the IDF during its shelling of Gaza.

Subsequent investigations revealed that it was in reality an archived Reuters photo originally taken in 2006.

According to Reuters, the photograph was that of a young woman killed as the result of local clashes in Gaza, not as the result of any IDF action.

Badawi, it was later discovered, had been involved in several earlier controversial actions, including a 2006 demonstration in Jerusalem in which she labeled current Defense Minister Ehud Barak a "war criminal." UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs Valerie Amos, while not disputing Badawi¹s actions, publicly questioned whether the world body could be held accountable for "personal" tweets.

As such, she launched the inquiry that Israel's UN mission charged was a "whitewash," with Ambassador Ron Prosor repeatedly insisting that Badawi be fired.

Amos then explained she was awaiting conclusions and recommendations. Yet weeks turned into months, with the investigation having been concluded in October 2012, and repeated inquiries to Amos for updates produced nothing.

On Wednesday, an email from the UN revealed that all facets of the fact-finding mission had finally been completed, and that the organization had opted not to renew Badawi's contract....

The Victimology Subterfuge
by Christine Williams
Part 2 / Part 1

President Obama, however continues to bow to Islamic intimidation tactics by disingenuously repeating to the United Nations, for example, that a YouTube video had contributed to the murders of Ambassador Stevens and others, weeks after he had presumably been told it was not true.

The Conservative government of Canada has declared that it cannot afford complacency in the face of the threats of ongoing intimidation and other compromises to national security. Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews has presented a multi-faceted government strategy, entitled "Building Resilience Against Terrorism," to tackle these demands. The program includes instruction on how to detect threats, as well as tactical plans. It encompasses investigation, intelligence operations, and a solid understanding of the "strategic drivers of the threat environment."

One of those strategies, heavily used by the adversaries of our democracy in every Western nation, is the abuse of the word "racism," where Muslim groups like CAIR and ISNA try to convince the Muslim population that it is being victimized. These groups fuel and fan the false notion that American Muslims are in perpetual danger at the hands of "racists" and "Islamophobes," while themselves practicing the tactical deception of al taqiyya to cover their promotion of an extremist rhetoric and assisting in a radical agenda.

This "victimology" subterfuge and its successes are also transmitted through Palestinian propaganda. Even as Israel defends itself after rocket attacks are launched from Gaza, it is only the plight of the Palestinians that is promoted, despite massive evidence that the Palestinian leadership is victimizing its own people (and of course Israel) by placing its weaponry and rocket launchers in heavily populated areas, causing civilian casualties among its own people for the world to see. The mainstream media largely covers up how Palestinians use their own people as human shields, and continues to present these violators of all human rights as victims. The mainstream media has also failed to report that the Palestinians have been conducting an ethnic cleansing of Christians in Bethlehem for years, all the while blaming "colonialists," "imperialists," "Zionists" and the West.

Canada remains one of the few countries which has remained firm in its support of Israel amid global propaganda, and which recently opposed the Palestinian upgrade at the UN. While the U.S. also opposed the upgrade, the Obama administration was quick to appear "evenhanded" as it condemned Israel's plans for building new homes in areas claimed by the Palestinians.

Another issue Canada now faces is the tactic of "lawfare" -- employing the courts as weapons by filing, or threatening to file, costly, frivolous and malicious lawsuits -- to discourage others from speaking out, whether in public or in the privacy of their homes, as with Lars Hedegaard. Multicultural Canada, with its "kangaroo court" Human Rights Commissions, is particularly vulnerable. Now, a well-known blog, Blazing Cat Fur, noteworthy for its effective exposés on the ruthlessness of such maneuvers in Canada, is being sued, joining scores of others attacked by Islamists in our free society.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), made up of 56 Arab and Muslim nations, has been relentless in its drives to criminalize free speech in the West. In Istanbul, on April 12, 2011, the UN Council on Human Rights adopted Resolution 16/18, and it received the support of the U.S. government. This resolution requires that Western democracies enact legislation to restrict speech that might be viewed as "discriminatory," or which might involve the "defamation of religion" – a transparent attempt to close down all discussion of Islam.

The first summit, co-chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the secretary general of the OIC, took place in Istanbul on July 15 2011. Clinton then hosted the OIC, in what is now known as the "The Istanbul Process," in December of 2011 in a three-day series of closed-door meetings at the U.S. Department of State in Washington. She justified her position by pointing out that there are those who feel vulnerable and marginalized as a result of their religious beliefs. She went on to promote the need to enforce "antidiscrimination laws" that would severely limit free speech. A third meeting on December 3-5, 2012 took place in London.

Nina Shea, a former Commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, observed that the real purpose of the Istanbul Process is to stop citizens in America and other Western nations from disparaging or even questioning Islam, and to be fully accountable to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and other Muslim states. Shea pointed out that for over 20 years, the OIC has been pressuring the West to restrict free speech in accordance with its charter to "to combat defamation of Islam."

Despite the push toward “antidiscrimination laws” as specified by Clinton, the initiative is one sided. Canadian Imam Zafar Bangash provides an example of the ideologies that have seeped in domestically and become virtually commonplace among Canadians and in the U.S. As director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, Bangash -- virulently anti-Semitic and anti-West -- once called for an Islamic revolution from a mall just north of Toronto. He has also referred to "that black man in the White House who can't say no to those Zionist parasites." Despite his spread of biased ideologies, he and his strong following -- domestically and internationally are quick to brand any criticism of such ideologies as "Islamophobic."

To protect all free speech, in the autumn of 2011, Conservative MP Brian Storseth introduced a ground-breaking Private Members Bill (Bill C-304). It repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which had banned hate speech over the Internet or by telephone. The bill in effect stripped the authority of Canada's Human Rights Commissions to investigate online hate speech, as well as the commissions' authority to remove these websites if they are found in violation.

As a multicultural nation under a Conservative government, Canada is emphatically resisting going the way of Europe, but still it runs a serious risk, all the more with politicians such as Justin Trudeau. France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe, has seen, largely from the promotion of extremist ideologies by Islamist preachers, the increasing radicalization of Muslims. The French population is now concerned about the growth of a parallel society -- not a peace-loving one, but one where threats, violence and oppression are commonplace. , according to a new survey, "the image of Islam" is "devastating." As Canada continues to honor human rights and equality for all, it would to do well to adopt a consistent, unapologetic stance in the face of anyone manipulating political correctness.

Christine Williams is a Federally appointed Director with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, a member of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center Task Force Against Anti-semitism, and a nine time, international award-winning talk show Host and Producer at CTS TV in Burlington, Ontario.

In "Prosecuting Muslim bomber 'alienates Muslims'?" at WND today, Pamela Geller sheds light on yet another indication of the true allegiances of Hamas-linked CAIR:

In what could have been a jihadi bloodbath of unimaginable proportions, a young American Muslim attempted to mass murder upward of 25,000 infidels (mostly women and children) at a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Ore. Mohamed Mohamud has now been found guilty, and the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is enraged. According to Reuters, Hamas-CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper “said the case could alienate the Muslim community.”

Mohamud’s undercover handlers offered him several choices in the service of jihad. He could have opted just to pray for the destruction of the infidels. On the other hand, he could have opted for Islamic martyrdom: killing infidels and getting himself killed in the process. He chose something in-between: a plot to kill infidels in large numbers without killing himself. He told the FBI he wanted to “become operational.”

Now the jury’s verdict is in. Mohamud has been found guilty. And the Muslim Brotherhood front CAIR says has the audacity to say that the prosecution of Mohamud “alienates Muslims.”

Again, there it is. Plain as day. Hamas-CAIR exposes its real agenda yet again. The prosecution of this jihadist “alienates Muslims”? Shouldn’t Muslim groups be standing with those of us who are fighting against this very thing? They should be condemning this attempt at jihad mass murder. But no, instead they stand with the would-be murderer. They are claiming that Mohamed Mohamud was a victim of FBI entrapment. What is the goal of this obfuscation? It is revealing of the true nature of “moderate” groups in the U.S.

Entrapment? Could anyone “entrap” you into mass murdering tens of thousands of people?

Mohamed Mohamud pushed the button twice. It failed to detonate, thanks to FBI surveillance programs (that very ones CAIR is working fiercely to stop).

On the morning of the planned jihad murders, Mohamud told one of his friends that this was “the greatest morning of my life.” No one was forcing him when, a few hours after that, he pushed the buttons on a cell phone that he thought would set off his jihad bomb and murder thousands upon thousands of infidels.

But Hamas-CAIR and other Muslim groups aren’t denouncing jihad and the Quranic verses that inspire these attacks. Why? Why aren’t they critical of jihad? Aren’t they supposed to be “moderate”? Why are they telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement? On two occasions, Cyrus McGoldrick, who was then an official of Hamas-CAIR’s New York chapter, issued threats to “snitches.” Is anyone investigating Cyrus McGoldrick, and trying to find out what he was afraid Muslims would “snitch” about?

Hamas-CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper also said, “I think convictions in these kinds of cases are almost forgone conclusions based on the government’s actions. They are the same in each case.” Yes, it’s the government’s fault that devout Muslims want to slaughter in the cause of Islam. Let’s blame the government for stopping this mass slaughter.

Why did Bill O’Reilly have CAIR on yet again last Thursday night, giving them the imprimatur of legitimacy?

Hamas-CAIR is a subversive Muslim Brotherhood group that was implicated in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation’s history, and is (according to the U.S. government) “operating in concert with a host of individuals and organizations dedicated to sustaining and furthering the Hamas movement. … The object of the conspiracy was to support Hamas. The support will be shown to have taken several forms, including raising money, propaganda, proselytizing, recruiting, as well as many other types of actions intended to continue to promote and move forward Hamas’s agenda of the destruction of the State of Israel and establishment of an Islamic state in its place.”

The international Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, whose job it was to support Hamas with “media, money and men” (more here). Clearly, that’s where CAIR comes in.

And the mainstream media aid and abet them. The Reuters report on Hamas-CAIR’s outrage over the Mohamud prosecution is ridiculous. Why go to Hamas-CAIR for comment at all? Why not ask those who are fighting jihad what they think of Mohamud’s actions and the verdict?

Read it all.

The Victimology Subterfuge
by Christine Williams
Part 1

Adherents of political Islam have found ways of influencing Western democracies, and have refined one process in particular, called al Taqiyya [dissimulation], sanctioned to promote Islam to "unbelievers" or "infidels. The word "Islamophobia," for instance, has been disguised and misused so frequently that when Westerners merely question Islam, or its role in terrorism, they risk being branded as "Islamophobes" or "racists." The term "victimology," in which Islamists perpetually portray Muslims as victims of racism or of "colonialists" or "imperialists," has also generated impressive results in vanquishing the infidel, and providing Islam an immunity from criticism and satirical depictions. As a result, whenever the subject about Islam is raised, open dialogue, media and public discourse are restricted or shut down out of fear of being branded "Islamophobic" or "racist," even where no such sentiments may have been present. No other religion even attempts to obtain such blanket immunity.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird drew a line in the sand last spring in a keynote address to the American Jewish Committee Global Forum. He avowed that "Canada will not go along to get along." Yet, despite the Canadian government's commitment to such values, it is confronted by the practice of al Taqiyya from Islamists, who appear to be using this method to hijack multiculturalism and suppress a key pillar of these freedoms: freedom of speech.

Take, for example, a study guide for would-be Canadian citizens, which stated that certain "barbaric" cultural practices, such as honor killings, would not be tolerated in Canada. In response to this, Liberal MP Justin Trudeau -- son of the former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and expected to become the next Liberal party leader -- castigated the government by stating that it should not call honor killings "barbaric;" that such language is unacceptable.

However, a man who slaughters his wife in front of their six children before throwing her dismembered head off an apartment rooftop is  "barbaric." The murder of four women, driven into the Rideau Canal near Kingston, Ontario for the sake of so-called honor, and the murder of a 17 year old girl for not wearing a hijab, thereby bringing so-called dishonor to her family, is also a barbaric display.

Many politicians, however, compete for votes at the expense of their citizenry, oblivious or otherwise ignoring an agenda to promote Shariah Law globally, both through the subjugation of the West and through the delegitimization of Israel, with the ultimate goal of obliterating it.

The latter was exposed at the 2001 U.N. World Conference against Racism in Durban, South African in 2001. The conference quickly deteriorated into a hate-fest against Israel, as did the subsequent Durban II and Durban III Conferences that continued to go downhill, prompting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to finally say: "We should condemn anyone who uses this platform to subvert that effort with inflammatory rhetoric, baseless assertions and hateful speech. Our common commitment must be to focus on the real problems of racism and intolerance.”

Justin Trudeau also recently came under fire for his participation in Canada's largest Islamic Conference, held in Toronto, and entitled, "Reviving the Islamic Spirit." The criticism was over the conference's sponsor, IRFAN [International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy], which was stripped of its federal charity status because of its ties to the terrorist group, Hamas. Even the moderate Muslim Canadian Congress advised Trudeau not to attend.

Trudeau, according to a report, smothered the Islamic conference in platitudes. He went so far as to imply a totally inapt comparison in trying to liken the fierce division between English and French Canada, under Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, to that of the current divisions between mainstream Canada and Islam.

Evidently trying to balance competing interests, the Supreme Court of Canada recently made a significant ruling, that a witness, while testifying, may be required to remove her niqab face-cover. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said the ruling was intended to ensure the accused a fair trial and to sustain public confidence in the justice system. However, McLachlin also invoked the Charter of Rights, stating that there are times where balancing religious beliefs can be accommodated -- a ruling which leaves future cases open-ended. CAIR-CAN applauded the ruling for allowing religious concessions, while the Muslim Canadian Congress reluctantly praised it for not being comprehensive. Canadian courts also made a decision a year ago to ban Muslim women from covering their faces during citizenship ceremonies.

Canada's challenge in demarcating reasonable accommodations has been further exacerbated by Islamist coercion. For example, Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, visited Ottawa last September and called on the West to fight "Islamophobia." "Islamophobia" he said, "should be declared a crime against humanity." He commended Canada's multicultural identity while condemning what he called the profiling of Muslims at U.S. airports. However, although he referred to profiling as a provocation that can change the psychological atmosphere of an entire country, he made no reference to how global Islamic terrorism can change the psychological atmosphere of an entire country.

The same week as Davutoglu's visit to Ottawa, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also pronounced "Islamophobia" a "crime against humanity." He did so in the wake of the film "Innocence of Muslims," falsely blamed by the Obama administration for having provoked the murders in Libya of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomats.

There have, nevertheless, been sufficient demonstrations of intimidation and death threats, as well as murders and attempted murders by Muslim extremists against those who are deemed to have offended Islam. To name just a few: Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh,  Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, and Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard who recently warned that the West cannot permit itself to be muzzled by fear of offending Islamic sensibilities.

Canada and the West need to declare and defend a pluralistic, democratic approach to rights and freedoms without any shame, and without fear of offending anyone who might try to intimidate their citizens.

To be continued.

Christine Williams is a Federally appointed Director with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, a member of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center Task Force Against Anti-semitism, and a nine time, international award-winning talk show Host and Producer at CTS TV in Burlington, Ontario.

Dawkins is the victim here of a very common Islamic supremacist tactic: to claim that any criticism of any jihadist action is a criticism of all Muslims, such criticism being not allowed under any circumstances in acceptable public discourse. The mainstream media and Islamic supremacist spokesmen did the same thing with our AFDI ad above, claiming that we were calling all Muslims "savages," as if every last Muslim supported the bloody and savage jihad against Israeli civilians.

And so Dawkins has to explain the obvious, as we do again and again and again, that he didn't mean all Muslims, and as he does, and as we do, the original point is lost -- which is the goal of this absurd Islamic supremacist victimhood posturing in the first place. Dawkins' original point was that those who destroyed the manuscripts in Timbuktu were barbarians. And they were. And they were acting in the name of Islam and its contempt for everything it considers jahiliyya, the society of unbelievers. Instead of addressing that, and determining to combat these ideas among their fellow Muslims, these Muslims went after Dawkins. So it always is: instead of fighting against the violent jihadists they profess to oppose, Islamic supremacists in the U.S. focus all their energy on attacking the non-Muslims who dare to oppose those jihadists.

"'A priceless heritage destroyed by Islamic barbarians': Atheist Professor Dawkins outrages Muslims with comments over Mali extremists wrecking library," by Mark Duell in the Daily Mail, January 31:

Atheist Richard Dawkins has outraged Muslims after describing looters who destroyed manuscripts in Mali as ‘Islamic barbarians’.

The 71-year-old author of The God Delusion was referring to the severe damage caused by Islamist extremists to a sacred library in Timbuktu but his remarks were seen as insulting to all Muslims.

Oxford University academic Professor Dawkins told his 600,000 Twitter followers on Tuesday: ‘Like Alexandria, like Bamiyan, Timbuktu's priceless manuscript heritage destroyed by Islamic barbarians.’

But his comments were criticised, with some followers claiming he was unjustly attacking Islam and others saying he should be considering vandalism committed by Christians, reported the Daily Telegraph.

Muslim Twitter user ‘Shawa5i Al Nasseri’ from the United Arab Emirates said: 'You call us barbarians, truly no respect', before later adding: 'How do you explain this "destroyed by Islamic barbarians?”’

Professor Dawkins responded to the comments by saying: ‘You mean you were one of those who burned the books in Timbuktu? No? I thought not. So I wasn't calling you a barbarian was I.’

He also said to all of his followers: ‘I was calling Islamic BARBARIANS barbarians’, adding: ‘By “Islamic barbarians” I mean those Muslims who are also barbarians. I do not of course mean all Muslims.’

Professor Dawkins later added: ‘Xtian (Christian) barbarians murder abortion doctors. Most Xtians (Christians) are not barbarians. Stalin was an atheist barbarian. Most atheists are not barbarians.’

On Monday Islamists were said to have burned down the world-famous Ahmed Baba Institute library containing priceless manuscripts and artefacts.'...

Baroness Warsi is working from the same playbook that Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacist groups in the U.S., along with compromised academics like Haroon Moghul and a host of other rogues and hacks, use regularly: deflect attention from jihad terror and Islamic supremacism by claiming that the whole thing is a public relations problem trumped up by vicious, bigoted, racist, hateful "Islamophobes."

The whole thing is nonsense, of course. If anyone in Britain thinks Islam is incompatible with British life, it is because so many Muslims there behave as if it is. It is because of the rape gangs, the hate preachers, the thuggery on the streets, the jeering at returning military personnel, and all the rest. This kind of thing isn't caused by "Islamophobia." "Islamophobia," such as any actually exists, comes from it.

Journalist Enza Ferreri noted last September: "And former co-chairman of the Conservative Party Baroness Warsi, unelected, appointed to the House of Lords, amidst public expenses frauds scandals, breachings of both the Ministerial Code and rules on financial declarations, found time to run a business her partner in which, Abid Hussain, has been a leading member of Hizb ut Tahrir, a radical Islamic group the Conservatives promised to ban when they were in opposition."

Any attack on an innocent person is reprehensible. That bit about Hizb ut Tahrir makes it clear that Baroness Warsi may have a vested interest in exaggerating their frequency.

"Fewer than one in four people think Islam is compatible with British life, faith minister warns," by Tim Shipman for the Daily Mail, January 24 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Fewer than one in four British voters believes Islam is compatible with the British way of life, the UK's first Muslim woman Cabinet Minister reveals today.

Baroness Warsi will quote private police figures which show that more than half of race hate attacks in Britain are against Muslims as she condemns critics of Islam for peddling 'hate'.

Lady Warsi sparked huge controversy two years ago when she said Britain's approach to Muslims has made Islamophobia acceptable at middle class dinner parties.

But in a new speech today she accuses critics of Islam of being 'un-British' themselves by grouping ordinary Muslims with extremists.

The Minister for Faith and Communities reveals stark polling conducted by YouGov which found that just 24 per cent of voters think Islam is compatible with being British, while more than half disagree. Only 23 per cent say Islam is not a threat to Western civilisation.

An unrepentant Lady Warsi, whose parents emigrated from Pakistan, said that she was right to speak out before and will use the new evidence to warn that the 'underlying, unfounded mistrust' of Muslims is fuelling extremism.

In her speech to a group called Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks, which monitors violence against Muslims, Lady Warsi condemned politicians and the media for failing to do enough to combat negative views of Muslims.

'When I said that Islamophobia had "passed the dinner table test", I meant anti-Muslim sentiment had become so socially acceptable, it could be found even in the most civilised of settings.

'I got a fair amount of stick for making that statement. There were those who denied the problem existed. There were those who said talking about it was dangerous.

'But let me tell you what's really dangerous. It's when people are treated differently because they hold a different religious belief. It's when a country turns a blind eye towards that discrimination....

This beard is waging a courtroom jihad

But his beard was not forcibly shaved. The judge who ordered this was removed for his horrifying "Islamophobia." The never-ending chutzpah of this jihad mass murderer and his attorneys is a disgrace, and that it is entertained at all is a sign of how compromised our military has become.

"Fort Hood shooting suspect wants death penalty out," by Angela K. Brown for the Associated Press, January 25 (thanks to Kenneth):

FORT WORTH, Texas — The new judge in the Fort Hood shooting rampage case faces a controversial decision next week: whether to spare Maj. Nidal Hasan a possible death sentence and let him plead guilty in the worst mass shooting on a U.S. military installation.

Defense attorneys said Hasan wants to plead guilty to 13 counts of premeditated murder, but Army rules prohibit a judge from accepting a guilty plea in a death penalty case. If the death sentence is removed, Hasan's punishment would be life without parole — which he already faces if convicted of the 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the 2009 attack on the Texas Army post.

The date for his long-delayed trial has not been set, but pretrial hearings are scheduled Wednesday through Friday so the new military judge, Col. Tara Osborn, can reconsider several defense requests previously rejected by the former judge. That judge was removed after the military's highest court said he appeared to show bias, a ruling that ended appeals that had delayed the case more than three months.

Defense attorneys argue that Hasan should be spared a possible death sentence because his rights have been violated — including by the former judge who ordered that Hasan's beard be forcibly shaved. Hasan first showed up in court in June with a beard, later saying it was required by his Muslim faith, but facial hair violates Army rules.

He also murdered thirteen people because of his Muslim faith. That should be taken into account as well.

Defense attorneys also claim Fort Hood's commanding general was not impartial when he decided in July 2011 that Hasan would face the death penalty, and had been influenced by high-ranking government officials. Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, has not yet entered a plea.

Osborn has full authority to decide on the death penalty issue because she is ruling on legal matters raised by the defense, said Jeff Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio.

"I think the case will go forward as a death penalty case, because it's dragged on for years, and if ever there was a case fitting of the death penalty, this is it," said Addicott, who is not involved in the Hasan case, adding that he believed Hasan is "a radical extremist ... and he has no remorse."

He said defense attorneys are simply trying to quickly end the case by having their client plead guilty and avoid a death sentence.

Witnesses have said that a gunman wearing an Army combat uniform opened fire after shouting "Allahu Akbar!" — or "God is great!" in Arabic — inside a crowded medical building on Nov. 5, 2009, where deploying and returning soldiers received vaccines and other tests. Hasan was also about to deploy to Afghanistan.

A Senate report released in 2011 said the FBI missed warning signs about Hasan, alleging he had become an Islamic extremist and a "ticking time bomb" before the rampage at Fort Hood, about 125 miles southwest of Fort Worth. Officials also said Hasan exchanged emails with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Islamic cleric killed in Yemen in 2011 by a drone strike.

Osborn was appointed to oversee the Hasan case in December after the military's highest appeals court ousted the former judge, Col. Gregory Gross, and tossed out his order to have Hasan's beard forcibly shaved before his court-martial....