Freedom Center Ads and Double Standards

Posted by Mark Tapson Bio ↓ on Feb 2nd, 2012

The Freedom Center ad is published in full below this article.

Controversy is heating up over a David Horowitz Freedom Center advertisement published in an Ohio State University student newspaper.

Under the headline “Former Leaders of the Muslim Student Association (MSA): Where Are They Now?,” the ad in The Lantern simply lists, without comment, ten MSA co-founders and former presidents connected to terrorist entities such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Not all have criminal convictions, but among them are such terrorist superstars as Anwar al-Awlaki, the budding “bin Laden 2.0” taken out last year in a drone attack, and Abu Mansoor al-Amriki, spokesman for al-Qaeda in Somalia. The ad closes by promoting a new pamphlet by Daniel Greenfield at the Freedom Center, Muslim Hate Groups on Campus, which documents the radical origins and violent objectives of the main Muslim student organizations on our nation’s campuses, such as the MSA and Students for Justice in Palestine, which are sponsors of hate-fests like “Israeli Apartheid Weeks” or “Palestine Awareness Weeks.”

In fact, the Ohio State University branch of the MSA has had connections to terrorists itself, as noted in the 2008 FrontPage piece, “Terror-Funded MSA at Ohio State.” Kindhearts, the sponsor of a 2006 MSA conference, was closed by order of the Department of the Treasury for financing terrorism:

Kindhearts, however, was not the only terror-connected sponsor of the OSU MSA conference. Also supporting the MSA’s conference was its local parent organization, Masjid Omar Ibn El-Khattab, known affectionately in the Central Ohio area as “Masjid Al-Qaeda”. The mosque nearby the OSU campus was home to the largest known Al-Qaeda cell in the US.

After 9/11 the OSU MSA email list regularly published news releases by Islamic terrorist organizations and encouraged readers to buy videos from a terrorist support website. In 2003 the student organization helped host now-convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian. More recently, the OSU MSA jointly sponsored an event featuring notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Badawi.

One of the Ohio State students who complained about the DHFC ad is International Studies major Jana al-Akhras, 18. “I am offended not only as a Muslim or as a general-body member of the MSA, but as a member of the OSU community,” she said. “We do not stand for discrimination, hate or intolerance here.” Nor does the Freedom Center – its ad has no hateful, intolerant, or discriminatory content, except perhaps an implied intolerance for terrorist activity. That’s enough for al-Akhras to dismiss it as “hate speech”; she claims that the ad constitutes a blanket statement labeling Muslim students as security threats. “It’s a blatant attempt at reinforcing stereotypes and causing widespread fear of Muslims on campus.” To imply that the MSA is responsible for international terrorism only “breeds hatred,” she insists.

Al-Akhras did not explain how merely identifying the names of ten MSA leaders and their demonstrable connections to terrorism breeds hatred; nor did she address the fact that it is the terrorists themselves and their supporters who are the ones consumed by hatred and “reinforcing stereotypes” about Muslims. She also did not contradict the factuality of the ad’s content; she only offered the excuse that there can be “bad apples” in any organization.

She believes “there’s a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech.” Apparently the facts presented in the DHFC ad cross that line. OSU Undergraduate Student Government President Nick Messenger chimed in, calling the ad “false, bigoted and full of hate speech that doesn’t have a place on campus.” Neither he nor al-Akhras provided any evidence for their accusations; nonetheless, she said that The Lantern “had every right to deny [the ad] as hate speech.”

The Lantern publications committee disagreed with them. A faculty adviser for the student paper confirmed that “the adviser and co-chair of the publications committee agreed that the ad did not violate [their] policy.” A Muslim student at OSU contributed an editorial to The Lantern defending the right to freedom of speech and pointing out that the magazine’s editors have no control over the advertising. But then she wrote, “If there’s someone we should all be mad at, it’s Daniel Greenfield who wrote the pamphlet.” Interestingly, none of the student complainants is mad at the listed terrorists or the MSA for breeding them, only at the Freedom Center for bringing this to people’s attention.

David Horowitz noted that “this attack on the messenger instead of addressing the facts is the standard operating procedure of the terrorists and their apologists, who include leading liberal organizations like the Center for American Progress.” (The Soros-funded Center for American Progress released a report late last year – “Fear Inc., The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” – attacking the critics of jihad as “Islamophobes”; numerous FrontPage writers have exposed and discredited it).

This is the usefulness of the concept of “hate speech” for such opponents of free speech as al-Akhras: when faced with the irrefutable truth – in this case the documented connections of MSA leadership to violent jihad – they simply claim to be offended and denounce it as “hate speech.” End of story. No debate. No acknowledgement of the facts. Instead of addressing the content of the ad, al-Akhras and its other critics simply seek to shut down the truth as “hate.”

Furthermore, Jana al-Akhras’ indignation and accusations of hate speech reek of hypocrisy. According to the Jawa Report, she is the daughter of Ahmad al-Akhras, former National Vice Chairman of CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood front group posing as a civil advocacy organization. The Brotherhood is devoted to the elimination of Western civilization.

Two years ago al-Akhras was on a Viva Palestina caravan bearing supplies and hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to Hamas in Gaza. She appeared on Al-Jazeera discussing the caravan, which met with several Hamas leaders including known terrorists. Also on the caravan was Mohammed Soltan, president of the Ohio State Muslim Student Association and son of international terror sheikh Salah Soltan. The convoy members met with a number of Hamas officials, including the Hamas representative in Lebanon, and Musa Abu Marzook, the deputy leader of Hamas and a designated terrorist. They were also greeted by Hamas spokesman Talal Nasser and the political bureau head of Hamas himself, Khaled Mishaal.

Perhaps if Jana al-Akhras is so intolerant of hatred, a good place to begin condemning it is in the Hamas charter itself, which openly promises the extermination of Israel. Or she could condemn the Muslim Brotherhood’s open Jew-hatred and its subversive plan for destroying America and Israel. She could even start with the baby step of questioning why the Muslim Students Association spawns so many “bad apples.” But that would require acknowledging the truth.

About Mark Tapson

Quote:
Muslims, bring your women to our countries and we will free them.

Quote:

Let's pray that their deaths were not in vain. I think we will see more and more Muslim women fighting for rights when they see our governments will take a stand for them as they did in the Shafia case.

Muslims, bring your women to our countries and we will free them.

Helen

[quote]Hello Friends,

Last week a Canadian court found Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba and their son Hamed guilty of the honor killings of their 3 daughters (and Hamed's 3 teenage sisters) and Mohammad's "other" wife. As I said in a previous post this is one of the first verdicts calling these killings what they actually were "honor killings" and not finding other ridiculous and more politically correct names for murders of this sort like family violence and some other questionable descriptions for outright murder in the name of Islam and shariah law.

Assad’s Faithful Ally

Posted by Jacob Laksin Bio ↓ on Feb 2nd, 2012

As Syria’s regional and international standing has deteriorated amidst a bloody and brutal crackdown, one country has stood steadfastly in President Bashar al-Assad’s corner. Condemned by the international community and ostracized by the Arab League, Syria’s dictatorship has found a staunch ally in Russia.

Efforts to hold Syria to account have repeatedly run up against Russian opposition. Last October, Russia, backed by China, used its veto on the UN Security Council to block a resolution condemning Assad’s government for its suppression of anti-government opposition. Even when Assad stepped up the violence against his own people, Russia refused to spurn the regime. In December, Russia again blocked a UN resolution to hold Syria accountable for the violence. Just last week, Russia insisted that a draft U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Assad to step aside violated Russia’s “red lines.” While the U.S. and its Arab and European allies press for a resolution calling for Assad to step aside, Russia continues to champion his cause.

Russia’s support for Syria has been striking, not least because it is essentially alone in that support, but it’s not new. Russo-Syrian ties extend back to the Cold War, when the Soviet Union relied on Syria, then ruled by Assad’s father Hafez Assad, as a key sphere of influence. Situated just 400 miles from the Soviet Union’s southwestern border, Syria provided its Soviet patron with strategic and economic benefits. Access to Syrian ports at Tartus and Latakia ensured that the Soviet Union would have a direct link to the Mediterranean Sea. That strategic alliance was further forged with military sales. Between 1956 and 1985, Syria received $16.3 billion in Soviet military equipment, more than any other country in that time period.

Although the Soviet Union is no more, Russia remains a leading weapons supplier for Damascus. By some estimates, at least 10 percent of Russia’s global arms sales go to Syria. Current military contracts are estimated to be worth between $1.5 and $4 billion. Russia also retains its Soviet-era naval base in the port of Tartus. In a symbolic throwback to that era, just last month Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, anchored at the port. Syrian authorities welcomed the public relations opportunity, hailing the ship’s arrival as a “show of solidarity with the Syrian people.”

Russia also has other investments in Syria, including some estimated $20 billion in Syria’s infrastructure and energy sectors. The Russian engineering company Stroytransgaz has contracts with Syria’s state-owned gas company to develop technical equipment, build roads and lay miles of pipeline in Syria’s central region. Stroytransgaz is also building a natural gas refining plant just east of the Syrian city of Homs. It would not have escaped Russia’s notice that Homs in recent days has been the site of some of the most intense fighting between Syrian government forces and rebels, with an oil pipeline feeding a Syrian refinery among the casualties.

Oil is not what binds Russia to Syria, however. As the world’s largest oil producer and second largest exporter, Russia is not dependent on the Arab world for its energy consumption. Arguably even more than an economic interest, Syria is a status symbol for a country that has never fully abandoned its superpower designs. The collapse of the Soviet Union spelled the end of Russia’s ability to project power and influence through its client states but not its desire to do so. Deprived of its satellites, Russia made its mark by backing anti-Western regimes, whether it was Slabodan Mioslevic in Seria and the Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But as those regimes fell to U.S. and NATO interventions, Russian allies have become a rare commodity. ”With the exception of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Venezuela, there are practically no countries that may be called our friends,” Russian political analyst Alexei Vorobyov recently told the BBC. One could well add Syria to the small list of exceptions.

Yet Russian solidarity with Syria is more than an act of defiance against the West. It is also based on the cold logic that an international campaign to bring accountability to an undemocratic regime could be leveled against Russia, as well as Syria. Vladimir Putin is not Bashar al-Assad, even if Russia’s ruthless military intervention in Chechnya bears more than a passing resemblance to the Syrian government’s suppression of domestic opposition. But as the recent mass rallies in Moscow show, in the eyes of many Russians, Putin’s claims to democratic legitimacy are no more credible than Assad’s. It’s little wonder, then, that Russia has been so adamant in blocking regime change in Syria. As Russia’s UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin revealingly observed this week, once Western countries begin initiating regime change ”it is difficult to stop, then you will start telling what kings need to resign and what prime ministers need to step down.” Including, say, a certain prime minister with plans to reinstall himself as president.

In reality, any such Western effort is unlikely. The Obama administration, seemingly unwilling to accept “no” for an answer, continues to pursue its “reset” policy toward Russia. In the meantime, Russia’s intransigent backing for the Assad regime ensures that Syrians will continue to suffer. Since the government began its crackdown last March, over 6,000 people have been killed, the majority of them civilians. And the government shows no signs of backing down. Just last month, Assad vowed to use an “iron fist” to crush the Syrian opposition movement.

With their country on the edge of civil war, Syrians are in a precarious position. But with Russia effectively blocking any meaningful international attempt to intervene, the Assad regime need not count its days. For the foreseeable future, Russia’s “red lines” guarantee that the regime can continue to shed Syrian blood with impunity.

About Jacob Laksin