« March 2006 |
Main Page |
May 2006 »

Please read just a few of the headlines that World Net Daily has published.

April, 2006

'We're on the eve of World War III'
Ex-Mossad chief urges West to unite, warns of Muslims imposing ideology

JERUSALEM � Global civilization is on the verge of "World War III," a massive conflict in which the Islamic world will attempt to impose its ideology on Western nations, according to Meir Amit, a former director of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency.

Amit, one of the most esteemed figures in the international defense establishment, warned Islamic nations and global Islamist groups will continue launching "all kinds of attacks" against Western states. He urged the international community to immediately unite and coordinate a strategy to fight against the "Islamic war."

"We are on the eve of war with the Islamic world, which will wage a war and all kinds of actions and attacks against the Western world. We already noticed the terrorists in the world hit Spain, England, France. I call it World War III. You must look at it from this angle and treat it wider, not as a problem of terrorism here and there," said Amit, speaking during an exclusive interview with WND's Aaron Klein and ABC Radio's John Batchelor broadcast on Batchelor's national program, for which Klein serves as a co-host. (Listen to the Amit interview.)

Amit served as Mossad chief from 1963 to 1968. He directed some of the most notorious Mossad operations during that time and pioneered many of the tactics currently used by intelligence agencies worldwide. The subject of multiple books and movies, Amit is routinely described as a "living legend." Now in his mid-80s, Amit serves as chairman of Israel's Center for Special Studies.

The former intelligence chief referenced recent terror attacks against Israel, Europe and the United States; Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions; the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan; and worldwide Muslim riots.

"It looks to me like it is a kind of coordinated or contemplated problem to somehow impose the Islamic idea all over the world," Amit said.

Israel is routinely attacked by Palestinian terror groups. Since December 2000, 993 Israelis have been killed. Spain in March 2004 was struck by a series of coordinated bombings on its commuter train system, killing 192 people. London was rocked last July by bombings on its transportation system. France has been the scene of violent Muslim riots and attacks. And on Sept. 11, 2001, 2,986 people were killed when the U.S. was hit with coordinated terror attacks.

Violent Muslim riots erupted last month in the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon after cartoon images of Muhammad were printed in a Danish newspaper. The riots spread across the Middle East and throughout Europe.

At least 40 people were killed yesterday in a blast north of Mosul in Iraq. Iran and Syria have been accused of aiding the insurgency there and in Afghanistan against U.S. and European troops.

Amit urged Western nations to "unite and work together. Unfortunately, the world is not uniting. China and Russia are problems. This should be taken into consideration."

Both China and Russia have been aiding Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran claims is intended for peaceful purposes only. Russia last month received a delegation of Hamas leaders, and pledged to maintain diplomatic relations with the terror group in spite of efforts by the U.S. and Israel to isolate the newly elected Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Amit said Iran currently poses the most serious threat to the international community.

"The Iranians [are] financing terrorists in Israel and sending money," Amit said. "This is [my country's] immediate problem. But I think the most serious problem is Iran developing nuclear power."

Amit said Israel should not lead a military attack against Iran's suspected nuclear facilities, instead urging support for the course of diplomacy and sanctions.

"The problem of [Iranian] nuclear armaments is not an Israeli problem; it is a worldwide problem. Your question refers to what Israel can do. It shouldn't do anything by itself. It should maybe throw the idea that this is a world problem and all the Western world should unite, join hands and work together," said Amit.

"I am not sure whether a military operation would be the best solution. At least not the first solution. But you can put sanctions on Iran."

With regard to his warnings of a new world war, Amit clarified he was not advocating the international community take measures against all Arab countries:

"I know very well the Arab world. I have many friends in Arab world leaders. Not all of them think the same. They are also split in different groups. ... Although I think they will wage an Islamic war against the Western world, we must take into account they are not one piece. Somehow we must learn the differences between different sections and parts of the Arab world."

World Net Daily
March, 2006


Man faces death penalty
for becoming Christian

Despite ouster of Taliban by U.S., court still prosecutes ex-Muslim

Despite the fact the hardline Taliban regime is no longer in power, an Afghan man faces possible execution for allegedly abandoning his Islamic roots and becoming a Christian.

"Yes that's true, a man has converted to Christianity. He's being tried in one of our courts," Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada told the Middle East Times.

The case centers on Abdul Rahman, believed to be 41, who converted from Islam to Christianity some 16 years ago. His relatives reportedly notified authorities about the conversion.

The constitution in Afghanistan is based on Shariah law, which states any Muslim who rejects his or her religion should be sentenced to death.

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge told the Associated Press. "It is an attack on Islam. ... The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty."

If he indeed is sentenced, Rahman would be the first person punished for leaving Islam since the Taliban was ousted by American-led forces in late 2001, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Prosecutor Abdul Wasi says he offered to drop the charges if Rahman made the switch back to Islam, but the defendant is maintaining his Christian beliefs. The judge is expected to rule within two months.

About 99 percent of Afghanistan's 28 million people are Muslims, with the rest mostly Hindus.

World Net Daily
March, 2006



Other related articles from other sources:

CAIR Beaten in Court Again
By Andrew Whitehead and Lee Kaplan

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has suffered another setback in its effort to gag all those who would criticize its cozy relationship with Hamas and radical Islam.  The Canadian branch of CAIR was forced this week to back off its defamation suit against David Harris, Director of the International and Terrorist Intelligence Program (INSIGNIS), a strategic intelligence research corporation based in Ottawa. This retreat comes on the heels of a similar lawsuit that the US division of CAIR filed against Andrew Whitehead, the head of Anti-CAIR in the United States, and was forced recently to withdraw.

Harris had appeared on an Ottawa radio station, CFRA radio, and during an interview made some remarks about the need for Canadian authorities to take a hard look at CAIR-CAN and the fact that some 70% of the funds it raises goes to the American chapter of the organization. He was then hit by a SLAPP lawsuit launched by Dr. Sheema Kahn and Riad Saloojee, the Executive Director of CAIR-CAN. (Both CAIR-CAN leaders have since lost their jobs.)

According to Harris, CAIR-CAN "dropped the suit cold" with no damages, costs, and, as with its dismissed $1.35 million action against ACAIR in the U.S., with no apologies or detailed clarification.  A lawyer involved in criminal and national security matters who has testified before the Congress and is a former chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and who appears frequently on radio, Harris said in a prepared press statement:

"As a commentator on national security affairs, my guiding principle throughout CAIR-CAN's lawsuit was never to compromise hard-won rights of media and media commentators to their exercise of responsible free expression under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  I viewed this as a responsibility at a time when Canadians in Afghanistan and elsewhere are dying for such rights, and when civil liberties must be vigorously defended at home.”    

He added, "It is unknown whether this unease [on the part of the court] stemmed from concern about the detailed review and disclosures that would derive from such proceedings.  Or
whether the collapse of its mother organization's US$1.35 million libel case against the American Anti-CAIR organization played a part.  We do not know whether it was the unearthing of a December 2003 court document in which Dr. Khan had sworn to CAIR-CAN's subsidiary status in relation to the troubling US CAIR group.  Perhaps it was a concern that, on the witness stand, CAIR-CAN officials would be asked to answer the questions I had asked about that relationship on CFRA radio."

Just as with the Anti-CAIR case, CAIR-CAN sought to spin its loss in a press release stating that Harris, who was a regular "security consultant" on CFRA -radio, would not be invited back as a guest. (He has in fact appeared several times on the channel as a guest since the instigation of the lawsuit.) CAIR-CAN has also suggested that it had silenced its Canadian critics by its legal action, just as it had silenced its critics in the U.S.  But the Anti-CAIR group has become even more relentless in its pursuit of CAIR since the lawsuit was dropped.  

This is actually the third round in the battle against CAIR and its effort to destabilize the domestic War on Terror that has been won by its opponents.

The first loss came when CAIR-CAN dropped its suit against columnist David Frum of the National Post.  Frum, a former White House speechwriter for the Bush administration who is credited with the "axis of evil" phrase, was sued by CAIR-CAN because of his suggestion in a (Canadian) National Post article that CAIR-CAN had terrorist affiliations. Frum issued this statement about his own case after the David Harris victory:  "The lawsuit against the National Post and myself was settled with an editor's note that likewise offered no apology or retraction.  The settlement of the Harris lawsuit should be of special interest to Canadians. David Harris is one of Canada's leading experts on terrorism: a former chief of strategic planning for CSIS and now president of the IINSIGNIS consulting firm. His views are regularly heard on television and radio. Now he has recovered his full freedom to speak and to alert Canadians to the dangers in their midst.”
What lessons will CAIR take from the reverses it has suffered in these three court actions?  Will the organization moderate its support of Hamas and other radical Islamist organizations?  Will there be a shakeup in CAIR's leadership, as there has been with CAIR-CAN? And most importantly, will the "rank and file" membership of CAIR finally recognize that this organization is not a “civil rights” group and represents radical Islamists overseas and not ordinary Muslims here at home?

April, 2006



CAIR Backs Down from Anti-CAIR

In a stunning setback, the Council on American-Islamic Relations defamation suit against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR has been dismissed with prejudice.  The Anti-CAIR website, www.anti-cair-net.org, reports a mutually agreeable settlement, the terms of which are confidential. However, Whitehead notes that he issued no public apology to CAIR, made no retractions or corrections, and left the Anti-CAIR website unchanged, so that it continues to post the statements that triggered CAIRs suit. Specifically, CAIR had complained about Whitehead calling it a terrorist supporting front organization  founded by Hamas supporters that aims to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States. It also objected to being described as dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America.

That clears the decks; no additional actions are pending between these two parties. In brief, Whitehead won a sweet victory, while CAIR suffered a humiliating defeat.


CAIR initially filed suit in a Virginia Circuit Court on March 31, 2004, claiming six of Whiteheads statements were false, that Whitehead made them with knowledge of their falsity, and that the statements were actionable because they impute the commission of a criminal offense. CAIR further claimed injury to its standing and reputation throughout the United States and elsewhere, and sought $1 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages, plus legal fees and interest.  It did so despite Whiteheads telling a reporter I haven't got any [money].


The original five statements as quoted in CAIRs complaint were:   

        Let their [sic] be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America.

        CAIR is an organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection.

        ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries.

        Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the moderate face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries.

        CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America.


In January 2005, Whiteheads counsel, Reed D. Rubinstein of Greenberg Traurig LLPs Washington, D.C. office, submitted 327 discovery requests of CAIR; I have posted this important, well-informed discovery document at http://www.danielpipes.org/rr/3511_1.pdf. Whitehead sought extensive information regarding CAIRs finances, its relationship to Hamas, its ties to Saudi Arabia, and ties to other Islamists.


Signs of CAIRs problems came in June 2005, when  perhaps realizing how much was available in the public record about its activities, perhaps wishing to curtail some of the discovery process  it amended its complaint by dropping nearly all of its original claims. The amended complaint alleged only two brief statements to be false and defamatory:

        Let their [sic] be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization.

        CAIR seeks to overthrow constitutional government in the United States.

(For an analysis of this amended complaint, see Sharon Chadha and my article, CAIR Founded by Islamic Terrorists?)


In anticipation of a court hearing regarding discovery, Rubinstein filed papers in the Virginia Circuit Court in October 2005 and December 2005 alleging extensive links between CAIRs organizers and control group with Hamas and other foreign and domestic Islamists. Among other things, these papers alleged:

        CAIRs lineage goes back to a key Hamas leader (Musa Abu Marzook), and that CAIR has long been connected with, and exploited the 9/11 attacks to raise money for the Holy Land Foundation, a Hamas front group.

        CAIR is heavily supported, financially and otherwise, by suspect Saudi and UAE-based individuals and groups.

        CAIR states that the U.S. judicial system has been kidnapped by Israeli interests, and claims that anti-terror law enforcement action against the Holy Land Foundation was an anti-Muslim witch hunt promoted by the pro-Israel lobby in America.

CAIR refused to respond to Anti-CAIRs discovery requests in its November 2005 response to Rubinstein. For example, it did not admit that Hamas murders innocent civilians, it refused to disclose the identities of its Saudi donors, it declined to answer whether it aims to convert American Christians to Islam, and it avoided questions about the anti-Semitic and anti-American activities of its founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, including his communications with Hamas terrorists, speeches supporting suicide bombings, and advocacy of violence against Jews.


In March 2006, shortly before a scheduled court hearing to decide on several of Whiteheads requests (compelling CAIR to disclose its financial data, to answer questions about its relationship with Hamas and other Islamists, and to provide information regarding its leaders activities and intentions), the case was settled and then dismissed with prejudice by stipulation (meaning, the plaintiff has agreed to forever drop all of the claims that were in, or could have been in, the complaint).


Asked about these developments, CAIRs spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, confirmed to the New York Sun that the libel case was dismissed at the request of both parties and added that It was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. Asked if he implied that Whitehead had paid the organization to drop the case, Hooper replied, We filed the suit. Asked the same question again, Hooper repeated the same answer.




(1) I had a role in this story, for it was my article, Why Is CAIR Suing Anti-CAIR? published only a week after CAIRs initial filing, that brought this case to Reed Rubinsteins attention and led to Greenberg Traurig LLPs serving as Whiteheads wonderfully capable, pro-bono legal counsel.


(2) In that initial article, I expressed puzzlement why CAIR would voluntarily expose itself to discovery. Did it file this case expecting to steamroll Whitehead, whom CAIR may have perceived as an easy target, and thereby intimidate its critics? What seemed early on to be a mistake by CAIR is now confirmed as such; it ran into a litigation buzz-saw, and it seems to have cut and run. CAIR preferred the ignominy of walking away from the case it initiated rather than open to public scrutiny its finances, its list of supporters, and the beliefs and intentions of its key leaders.


(3) CAIRs November 2005 brief to the court contains several statements of note:

        CAIR has established a status of enviable prestige within highest echelons [sic] of the Washington establishment (p. 3). That is correct and it neatly sums up Sharon Chadhas and my extensive analysis in CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment.

        CAIR stands up for America and speaks out against terrorism in pronouncements to the general public, thereby earning the enmity of the very terrorists Whitehead claims CAIR supports (p. 6). Sounds good, but CAIR did not provide any evidence in its brief of such enmity.

        CAIR has communicated with various members of the United States Senate concerning both the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation. (pp. 27-8) This comes as news. One wonders what information on these two terrorism-funding groups CAIR provided.

        CAIR states that it advised Frontpagemag.com of possible legal action concerning a doctored photograph it employed to illustrate an article written by Whitehead (p. 28). Its amusing that CAIR, which itself famously doctored a photograph, accuses FPM of doing this; in fact, FPM merely posted a graphic, as it often does, one showing Hooper with Hamas figures in the background.

(4) Hooper stated the case settled for an undisclosed amount but did not disclose in which direction that amount went. The terms being confidential, one can only speculate. Perhaps CAIR desperately wanted out of the burdensome, embarrassing, and harmful case it foolishly had initiated? Rubenstein hinted as much when he observed that CAIR became more disposed to settle in late 2005, when a judge was considering what CAIR would have to divulge about its financing and its ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups. Rubenstein told the New York Sun that the lawsuit would have opened up CAIRs finances and their relationships and their principles, their ideological motivations in a way they did not want to be made public.


(5) According to CAIRs own analysis of Whiteheads initial statements, they impute the commission of a criminal offense by CAIR, in that these suggest CAIR actively supports terrorists, and advocates the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution in favor of Islamic law. It bears noting that none of these words were found to be false, they were not retracted, and they remain posted on Anti-CAIRs website.


(6) The collapse of this lawsuit, combined with the even more recent ending of two other CAIR legal actions (versus Cass Ballenger and David Harris), suggests that CAIR is no longer the plaintiff in any court cases; more broadly, what I in 2004 called its pattern of growing litigiousness seems finished.


(7) With CAIRs hopes of defeating its opponents in the legal arena at least temporarily defeated, the next step for those of us in North America unwilling to live under Islamic law is to thwart the organizations social and political ambitions. I am doing my part by announcing today the establishment of Islamist Watch, a new project to combat the ideas and institutions of nonviolent, radical Islam in the United States and other Western countries.


April, 2006