| |
|
25. september 2005
|
|
A Saudi government official went on national TV to solicit funds for terrorism.
An August 29, 2005 program on Saudi Iqra TV was devoted to supporting Jihad in Palestine. The program host began by telling all Saudis that they must donate and explained how to do so.
A caption then appeared on the screen: "Saudi Committee for Support of the Al-Quds Intifada, Account No. 98, a joint account at all Saudi banks." A moderator stated that "Jihad is the pinnacle of Islam" and explained that the funds would go directly to those waging Jihad, where it would "help them carry out this mission."
The program included the secretary-general of the Saudi government's Muslim World League Koran Memorization Commission, Sheikh Abdallah Basfar, who explained why it was an "obligation" for all Muslims to support Jihad.
Basfar stated in the programme:
"The Prophet said: 'He who equips a fighter – it is as if he himself fought.' You lie in your bed, safe in your own home, and donate money – and Allah credits you with the rewards of a fighter. What is this? A privilege. So why this reluctance, despite all this encouragement? The Prophet said: 'He who equips a fighter – it is as if he himself fought' – and what a great difference there is between the two! What comparison is there between someone who pays money while living in comfort, and someone who sacrifices his soul for the sake of Allah, wages Jihad, and exerts efforts? There is a great difference. Yet Allah – because money is so important and since Jihad cannot be waged without it...
The Saudi government and especially the involved banks are not placed on the terrorist blacklist why? All right, I can see some realpolitik involved in pretending it's all cool with the Saudis, but there should definately be consequences for the individuals and organisations directly involved.
Via Andrew Cochran.
11:55:02 PM 
|
|
WaPo sees the destruction of Hurricane Rita, now reduced to a tropical depression, in a positive light: it was certainly far less destructive than expected.
Survival in this vast region of bayous, piney woods, petrochemical plants and urban sprawl owed itself both to luck -- Rita came ashore in a relatively unpopulated area -- and to the fearsome example set by Hurricane Katrina, the storm that killed more than 1,000 people when it ripped through New Orleans and Mississippi's Gulf Coast less than four weeks ago.
Chastened by Katrina memories, more than 3 million Texans and large numbers of Louisianans evacuated Houston, Galveston and dozens of smaller settlements in one of the biggest -- and fastest -- internal migrations in U.S. history, leaving Rita to howl its way through ghost towns.
"Everybody left," said Jason Stagg, 34, working with a Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries boat crew in this battered Gulf Coast port town and tourist destination, near which the eye of the hurricane passed just before dawn. "We haven't had to rescue anyone."
In fact, the newspaper must be in a very charitable mood today, as another article praises the federal emergency response.
Reinforced armies of federal search teams, medics and National Guard troops began fanning out into wind-whipped and waterlogged southwestern Louisiana and coastal Texas yesterday, racing to prove the government had learned from its disastrous missteps earlier this month on the Gulf Coast.
CNN, on the other hand, is in a very gloomy mood, listing up all the horrible things that may, for all we know, have happened. Is that what they mean by 'tropical depression'? Only in paragraph 16 do we find some potential good news.
David Paulison, acting director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Saturday that storm damage "is not as severe as we expected." Paulison said mandatory evacuations ahead of the storm worked, and there are no reported deaths.
Of course, it is still early.
12:36:00 PM
|
|
Hanoi Jane and Georgeous George Galloway appeared to be a pair made in left-wing heaven, but now Jane Fonda have dumped him. She cited recent hip surgery as an explanation for the no-show, but Christopher Hitchens is convinced his debate with Galloway had shown many American leftists that George was bad company.
The British writer Christopher Hitchens, a vocal opponent of Galloway who debated with him in front of a sell-out audience in New York, said Fonda’s no-show, coupled with her appearance at another left-wing event, “could not have been more pointed”.
Hitchens claimed that Fonda had “dumped” Galloway after watching a tape of the debate, in which he accused Galloway of being in thrall to Arab dictators. “I lost him Jane Fonda,” he said. “She bailed out because she couldn’t bear to appear with this scumbag.”
Whatever the truth of that, it appears Hitchens isn't the only one on the left to wonder what company they keep.
Some American opponents of the war have been cautioning fellow leftwingers against adopting the politician as a figurehead. Marc Cooper, a journalist with LA Weekly, urged Galloway to go home.
“Mr Galloway isn’t really opposed to the war in Iraq, he simply supports another side,” Cooper wrote. “He is not our ally, nor our friend. He is a Swamp-thing.”
Greg Palast, another anti-war writer, said that Galloway had given “one helluva performance” in the Senate. “But before we rally around this stand-up guy from Britain, we should ask him a few questions of his own,” he warned. “Are we about standing up for the defenceless — or the cruel and senseless?”
At the same time, the far left crowd at the Daily Kos finds themselves wondering the same thing after the recent Washington DC anti-war rally, which contained too many tinfoil hats even for their liking. "I am on the verge of saying screw the anti-war rally," complains the poster NewDem.
Watching clips of the Answer Anti-War Rally, all I see are things that I want nothing to do with. I am a staunch supporter of Israel, and its fundamental right to exist. I bet you that the majority of Americans who are against the war are too. Yet I watch this rally and see people basically supporting the Hamas, etc., and the suicide killings of innocent Israelis in cafes, on buses, etc.
If you want to break down the coalition of people against the war, turning this into a hate the Jews/Israel party is an easy way to do it.
Intapundit links to a number of roundups, including a big one from Gateway Pundit, (can any sane person really be seen in the same cause as Ramsey Clark?) and Michelle Malkin, who took photos that say more than a thousand protesters.
12:23:22 PM
|
|
After China and Russia came down heavily on Iran's side in the IAEA, the EU-3 succeeded in passing a watered down resolution that opens up for referring the case to the UN Security Council, but without a deadline.
The UN nuclear watchdog has passed a resolution that paves the way for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear ambitions.
The IAEA did not however set a date for reporting Iran to the council, which could ultimately decide to impose sanctions on the country.
The motion, proposed by the EU, had faced opposition within the IAEA this week. Twelve members abstained.
The US accuses Iran of seeking nuclear arms, a charge Tehran denies.
It is heartening that France and Germany stands with the US-UK alliance on this. Russia and China can at any rate block harsh resolutions in the UN SC. The document does mention the "many failures and breaches" committed by Iran over its nuclear programme.
Russia and China, which both strongly opposed the motion, abstained. Venezuela was the only country to vote against it.
The Mullahs have a friend in need in Chavez.
It is worth noting that India has left it's so-called non-alignment and voted with the EU-US.
Iran says its nuclear activities have not violated the NPT.
It has warned that if referred to the Security Council, it could start uranium enrichment - a possible step toward making nuclear arms - and stop allowing unfettered IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities and programmes.
Now explain to me how restarting the enrichment could be a threat if Iran's programme was wholly peaceful as it claims.
11:23:30 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 01.10.2005; 12:26:01.
|
|
|
