Muslim in Suffer

Bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem. Assalamu\’alaikum Warohmatullahi Wabarokatuh!

Archive for February 16th, 2008

Prophet Cartoon Reprinted in Danish Papers

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Prophet Cartoon Reprinted in Danish Papers


At least 17 Danish newspapers reprinted on Wednesday, February 13, a drawing of a man described as Prophet Muhammad  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) with a ticking bomb in his turban, a move slammed by Danish Muslims as ‘naive’.

“Their plans to kill Kurt Westergaard&133;are not just an attack on Westergaard but an attack on our democratic culture,” Politiken, the centre-left newspaper of reference, said in an editorial.

Two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent were arrested on Tuesday, February 12, over an alleged plot to kill Westergaard, the 73-year-old caricaturist.

“Regardless of whether Jyllands-Posten at the time used freedom of speech unwisely and with damaging consequences, the paper deserves unconditional solidarity when it is threatened with terror,” said Politiken.

“That is why Politiken today prints the drawing, even though at no time have we sympathized with Jyllands-Posten’s provocation.”

In 2005, Jyllands-Posten commissioned and published 12 drawings satirizing the Prophet, triggering a storm of protests across the Muslim world and straining ties with Muslim countries.

“Freedom of expression gives you the right to think, to speak and to draw what you like no matter how many terrorist plots there are,” conservative broadsheet Berlingske Tidende wrote in an editorial.

The newspaper, which had not previously printed the caricature, urged “the Danish media to stand united against fanaticism.”

Tabloid Ekstra Bladet meanwhile published all 12 of the original cartoons.

Naive

Danish public opinion appeared divided over the editors’ decision to reprint the cartoon.

“There’s no point in throwing oil on the fire by reprinting the most provocative caricature,” said Johan, a taxi driver in central Copenhagen, told Agence France-Presse (AFP).

Marianne, a designer, said meanwhile that it was “good to stand firm on freedom of expression and not cave in to those who want to stifle it.”

Danish Muslims, estimated to number more than 200,000 or three percent of the population, criticized the reprinting of the controversial drawing.

“It is a stupid and naive decision,” imam Abdul Wahid Pedersen told the Arabic-language Akhbar Denmark website (Akhbar.Dk).

“They should have sought a much rational way to show solidarity with the cartoonist than this move.”

Muslim community leaders on Tuesday distanced themselves from the “plot” with a torrent of statements and condemnations.

Jihad Al-Fra, the head of the Islamic Council in Denmark, described the reprinting as an attempt to fish in troubled water.

“There are parties that want to use this issue to fuel their campaigns against Muslims and the Prophet,” he said.

“This is an irrational move. It is a provocation.”

The Scandinavian Waqfs urged an astute reaction from Danish Muslims.

“Muslims must not be inflamed by this provocation,” said spokesman Qasim Sayed Ahmed.

“The best answer is to ignore it.”

On hearing the news that a museum in Copenhagen planned to acquire the 12 cartoons to preserve “a part of Danish history,” one Muslim leader said it was time to move on.

Following the 2005 cartoons crisis, Muslim worldwide took many initiatives to remove widely circulated stereotypes about Islam in the West.

Danish Muslims established the European Committee for Honoring the Prophet, a grouping of 27 Danish Muslim organizations, to raise awareness about the merits and characteristics of the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ).

PHOTO CAPTION

Abdul Wahid Pedersen.

Thursday : 14/02/2008

 

source: http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/engblue/article.php?lang=E&id=142789

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Tasers, Torture and Terror Tactics: America Becomes a Police State

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Tasers, Torture and Terror Tactics: America Becomes a Police State

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Torture and atrocities are not confined to Abu Ghraib. In and out of the nation’s ‘out-sourced’ penal institutions, perverts with badges terrorize the nation, threatening innocent children, women and the handicapped. Everyone is a target.

Being an innocent bystander, a model citizen, a Rotarian is not enough to keep you safe from rogue cops, tin-horn sheriffs, or other so-called law enforcement personnel. Who let these dogs out? Who uncorked this evil genie? What Nazi mentality makes a lethal enemy of those who had been sworn to “protect and serve” us? I am pissed!

My fellow Americans, we are being made war upon! And it is no coincidence that the culture of fear, hate, prejudice, perversion and violence unleashed by the evil administration of one George W. Bush is largely to blame. The endemically corrupt GOP has ‘stunk up the place’ and no one is safe –not in your home, your car, your property! This is what it means to live in a police state.

They are just some of the victims of wholesale torture taking place inside the U.S. prison system that we uncovered during a four-month investigation for Channel 4 . It’s terrible to watch some of the videos and realise that you’re not only seeing torture in action but, in the most extreme cases, you are witnessing young men dying.Torture Inc. Americas Brutal Prisons

Watch the following video and try to remember what a free America used to be.
Perhaps because someone uncorked the bottle and unleashed the evil genie, there is renewed interest in the ‘scientific’ study of evil. Such a renewed study may have its roots in the work of Dr. Gustav Gilbert, the American psychologist who was tasked with interviewing the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. He believed evil to be an “utter lack of empathy”. Certainly, this trait, this symptom of pure evil is seen throughout Bush’s America. It is always characterized by an unmistakable inability of persons in ‘power’ to identify in any way with the victims of their abuse.

The term, “ponerology” is an obscure theological term that means the study of evil. Andrzej knew this, and decided to reclaim and rehabilitate this word for scientific use since, as it happens, our science really doesn’t have a word for the study of “evil,” per se. We need one. The Trick of the Psychopath’s Trade: Make Us Believe that Evil Comes from Others

Someone should conduct a study of the evil that Bush has loosed in the US –the evil epidemic of needless and unlawful tasering, the ‘deputies’ who assaulted and stripped naked an innocent woman who had merely called the department for help, the ‘deputies’ who brutally threw a paralyzed man from his wheelchair and laughed about it.

Now police are told they can use Taser guns on children

By JASON LEWIS – More by this author » Last updated at 15:27pm on 2nd September 2007Police have been given the go-ahead to use Taser stun guns against children.The relaxing of restrictions on the use of the weapons comes despite warnings that they could trigger a heart attack in youngsters.Until now, Tasers – which emit a 50,000-volt electric shock – have been used only by specialist officers as a “non lethal” alternative to firearms.

American ‘law enforcement’ may have always been endemically crooked, appealing to incipient psychos in any case. Now, in Bush’s America, where every evil impulse is rewarded and somehow passes into a ‘mainstream’ itself corrupt and rotten, evil is winked at, encouraged by ‘those in power’, practiced by unqualified sociopaths, sadists, and perverts with badges.An addendum from the comments section:

ANY policeman/woman, ANY military person, ANY official, who chooses to use a Taser weapon, against ANy other person…is guilty of RAPE, and can be charged with such offences. If the person being Tasered is then taken away by force, the charge is also kidnapping, which is worth $1.6 million dollars per day!!
Get them ALL to contact David_Wynn Miller and show them how!!!

SUE THESE BASTARDS AND SEND THEM UP THE RIVER FOREVER!

source: http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/02/tasers-torture-and-terror-tactics.html

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Swan Song for NATO – The Real Cost Of Defeat In Forgettistan

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Swan Song for NATO

The Real Cost Of Defeat In Forgettistan

Mike Whitney
taliban55fighters.jpg


“It is our right to defend our country. We are not a threat to other countries. But we have to use our rights when our country is occupied by foreign forces.” – Mullah Omar, Taliban leader

February 13, 2008

It was supposed to be “the good war”; a war against terror; a war of liberation. It was intended to fix the eyes of the world on America’s state of the art weaponry, its crack troops and its overwhelming firepower. It was supposed to demonstrate—once and for all– that the world’s only superpower could no longer be beaten or resisted; that Washington could deploy its troops anywhere in the world and crush its adversaries at will.

Then everything went sideways. The war veered from the Pentagon’s script. The Taliban retreated, waited, regrouped and retaliated. They enlisted support from the Pashtuns and the tribal leaders who could see that America would never honor its commitments; that order would never be restored. Operation Enduring Freedom has brought neither peace nor prosperity to Afghanistan; just occupation. Seven years have passed and the country is still ruled by warlords and drug-merchants. Nothing has gotten better. The country is in shambles and the government is a fraud. The humiliation of foreign occupation persists while the killing goes on with no end in sight.

War is not foreign policy. It is slaughter. Seven years later; it’s still slaughter. The Taliban have taken over more than half of Afghanistan. They have conducted military operations in the capital of Kabul. They’re dug in at Logar, Wardak and Ghazni and control vast swathes of territory in Zabul, Helmand, Urzgan and Kandahar. Now they are getting ready to step-up operations and mount a Spring offensive. That means the hostilities will progressively intensify.

The Taliban’s approach is methodical and deliberate. They’ve shown they can survive the harshest conditions and still achieve tactical victories over a better-equipped enemy. They are highly-motivated and believe their cause is just. After all, they’re not fighting to occupy a foreign nation; they’re fighting to defend their own country. That strengthens their resolve and keeps morale high. When NATO and American troops leave Afghanistan; the Taliban will remain, just as they did when the Russians left 20 years ago. No difference. The US occupation will just be another grim footnote in the country’s tragic history.

The United States has gained nothing from its invasion of Afghanistan. US troops do not control even a square inch of Afghan soil. The moment a soldier lifts his boot-heel; that ground is returned to the native people. That won’t change either. General Dan McNeill said recently that “if proper US military counterinsurgency doctrine were followed; the US would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan.” Currently, the US and NATO have only 66,000 troops on the ground and the allies are refusing to send more. On a purely logistical level; victory is impossible.

The battle for hearts and minds has been lost, too. A statement from the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) sums it up like this:

“The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of our people for freedom and prosperity and proved that, for the Bush administration, defeating terrorism has no meaning at all….The US doesn’t want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and achieve their economic and strategic goals in the region….After seven years, there is no peace, human rights, democracy or reconstruction in Afghanistan. The destitution and suffering of our people is increasing everyday. …We believe that if the troops leave Afghanistan, our people will become more free and come out of their current puzzlement and doubts…Afghanistan’s freedom can only be achieved by Afghan people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters on the neck of our nation.” (RAWA www.rawa.org)


Gradually, the Allies are beginning to see that Bush’s war cannot be won and that continuing the fighting is counterproductive. There is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan and the political objectives are getting murkier all the time. The lack of direction just adds to the growing frustration.
Recently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tried to bully the allies into sending more combat troops to fight in the South, but he met with stiff resistance . He said:

“I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security,” Gates said. “We must not become a two-tiered alliance of those who are willing to fight and those who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would in effect destroy the alliance.”


But public support for the war is waning in Europe. This is America’s war, not theirs. Europeans don’t need to occupy foreign nations to meet their energy needs. Their economies are thriving and they can simply pay for their fuel on the open market. Only America wants the war. It’s all part of a crazy geopolitical “grand strategy” to project US power into the region to control its resources. So far, there’s no indication that the plan will succeed.


Germany has the third biggest economy in the world. Over the last few years, they have strengthened ties with Russia and made agreements that will satisfy their long-term energy needs. But German involvement in Afghanistan has put a strain on relations with Moscow. Putin thinks that the US is using the war to put down roots in Central Asia so it can control pipeline-routes from the Caspian Basin while surrounding Russia and China with military bases. Putin is right. Naturally, he’d like to persuade German Chancellor Angela Merkel to withdraw from Afghanistan which would strike a blow against the US-led alliance. And, that is the way it will probably turn out, too.

Eventually, German leaders will see that its foolish to tweak the nose of the people who provide them with energy (Russia) just to support Washington’s adventures. When Germany withdraws from Afghanistan; NATO will disband, new coalitions will form, and the transatlantic alliance fall apart. The cracks are already visible.

President Bush has said that the war in Afghanistan must continue or the country will become a haven for drugs, terrorism and organized crime. He says we are fighting a “poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism which threatens to become a global movement”.

But the Taliban and Pashtun tribesmen see it differently. They see the conflict as an imperial war of aggression which has only added to the suffering of their people. A recent report by the United Nations Human Development Fund appears to support this view. It shows that Afghanistan has fallen in every category. The average life expectancy has gone down, malnutrition has risen, literacy has dropped, and more than half the population is living below the poverty-line. Hundreds of thousands of people have been internally displaced by the war. The occupation has created plenty of misery, but no democracy. The war was a failure.

Afghanistan now produces 90% of the world’s opium; more than any other country. The booming drug trade is the direct corollary of the US invasion. No one even denies this. Bush has created the world’s largest narco-colony. Is that success?

Presently, there are no plans to improve the lives of ordinary Afghanis or to remove the warlords. Reconstruction is at a standstill. If the US stays in Afghanistan, the situation 10 years from now will be the same as it is today, only more people will have needlessly died. Most Afghanis now understand that the promise of democracy was a lie. The only thing the occupation has brought is more grinding poverty and random violence.

There’s no back-up plan for Afghanistan. In fact, there is no plan at all. The administration thought the Taliban would see America’s high-tech, laser-guided weaponry and run for the hills. They did. Now they’re back. And now we are embroiled in an “unwinnable” war with a tenacious enemy that grows stronger and more resolute by the day.

Eventually, the Europeans will see the futility of the war and leave. And that will be the end of NATO.

source : http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m41113&hd=&size=1&l=e

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Bombing of the Ameriyah Shelter Baghdad – A Night of Infamy.

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Bombing of the Ameriyah Shelter Baghdad – A Night of Infamy.

Felicity Arbuthnot, UN Observer
amiriyah2.jpeg

February 13, 2008

This night of the 13th/14th February marks one of infamy. The seventeenth anniversary of the bombing of the Ameriyah Shelter in Baghdad, by the United States, incinerating up to fifteen hundred souls, the majority children and women. The full number has never been established as the register was destroyed in the inferno.

With the 1991 carpet bombing at its height, it is known the Shelter was especially full. With its normality of showers, washing machines, a large communal kitchen and generators to operate them – and electricity off all over Baghdad – women and children went there to prepare for the feast of Eid the following day. The night of the bombing was also the eve of Saint Valentine’s Day and that of the anniversary of the fire bombing of Dresden.

Three days before the Shelter bombing, Dick Cheney, and General Colin Powell visited the Air base at Khamis Mushat, Saudia Arabia (slogan: “bombs are us” and “we live so others may die”).

After a pep talk to troops, they both signed two thousand pound bombs: “To Saddam with fond regards”, wrote Cheney (“A General’s War”, General Bernard Traynor and Michael Gordon, Little Brown, p324.)

A frantic investigation confirmed that their bombs had not hit the Shelter – and also confirm, then as now, how expendable precious souls are, to those in high places.

Lest we forget earlier crimes of enormity in Iraq.

Felicity Arbuthnot

source: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m41122&hd=&size=1&l=e

 

A Crime We’ll Never Forget
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m41104&hd=&size=1&l=e

Lest We Forget http://www.al-moharer.net/moh141/lest_we_forget141.htm

Remembering the bombing of the Ameriyah civilian shelter in Iraq
http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/March2004/ameriya.htm

The Iraqi Genocide http://www.peacepeople.com/Iraq.htm

Sanctions against Iraq http://www.think-twice.org.uk/2002/barr

International Law and War Crimes http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm

Iraq journal http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3849/is_199907/ai_n8863669

“The General’s War”, General Bernard Traynor and Michael Gordon, Little Brown
http://www.hachettebookgroupusa.com/books/16/0316321001/index.html

The WWII Dresden Holocaust – ‘A Single Column Of Flame’
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

Felicity Arbuthnot: The Ameriya Shelter – St. Valentine’s Day Massacre
http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=3165&blz=1

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

THE FORGOTTEN TERRORIST ATTACK

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

THE FORGOTTEN TERRORIST ATTACK

Malcom Lagauche

 
February 13-15, 2008
amiryah4.jpg
Loading up the charred bodies from the Amiryah terrorist attack

On the morning of February 14, 1991, when I turned the TV on to see the latest lies being told to the public about the U.S. bombing of Iraq, I saw a chaotic situation in Baghdad. The Amiryah bomb shelter had just been struck by two 2,000-pound superbombs. Information was sketchy, but it was evident that many people lost their lives. The first statement from the U.S. administration was that the U.S. hit an Iraqi command and control post and the dead were military. Shortly after, the cameras showed charred bodies of women and children, so the U.S. story had to be revised. The administration then said that the building was a military target in which Saddam Hussein placed civilians to protect the military personnel.

Remember that the current vice-president of the U.S., Dick Cheney, was the U.S. Secretary of War in 1991. He said, “We blame the Iraqi leadership for putting civilians in harm’s way.” That statement was not only a lie, but one of the most absurd allegations one could make because it denigrated the hundreds of humans who lost their lives. Cheney, an avid hunter of caged quail, once shot a hunting partner. He can’t tell the difference between a small bird and a person, so nothing is new about his lack of brainpower or eyesight.

For a couple of hours, the world was told that the Iraqis led civilians to their deaths by putting them into a military target. Then, the truth began to emerge.

The Amiryah bomb shelter was built as a civilian bomb shelter during the Iran-Iraq War. Even the engineer who designed it came on television and told the world that there was no way it could be a military asset.

After the lies were put to rest, it became evident that the U.S. had mistaken the target as a military venue, or it had deliberately bombed it knowing it was a bomb shelter. To this day, not one U.S. government spokesperson has ever mentioned the truth. In fact, after February 14, 1991, the subject has been left unspoken: even the lies.

Those inside the bomb shelter died horrific deaths. First, a 2,000-pound bomb crashed through the shelter creating a massive tunnel in which the second 2,000-pound bomb then came. Both blew up leaving a huge hole and killing more than 500 people. Only seven humans survived the attack. Those who died actually saw the first bomb and had a few seconds of life left before the second burrowed its way into the shelter. Such an attack transcends the barbarity of a bombing in which the people die immediately.

The lines of burnt dead bodies lining the street presented a horrific scene reminiscent of Hiroshima after it was nuked by the U.S.

This is the 17th anniversary of the bombing of the shelter, yet few words have been written as a reminder of the horrific act. Before March 2003, at least Iraq commemorated the event and remembered the dead. The stooges in power today don’t want to remind the world of the lack of caring for human life the U.S. displayed in 1991 in the bombing of Iraq. Most weren’t even in the country then. No matter how much they stick their heads in the sand, nothing will never ease the pain of one of the most barbaric terrorist attacks in history. The silence from the U.S. and the Iraqi quislings is deafening.

source: http://www.albasrah.net/pages/mod.php?mod=art&lapage=../en_articles_2008/0208/lagauche_150208.htm

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Iraqi Resistance Report for events of Friday, 15 February 2008

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Iraqi Resistance Report for events of Friday, 15 February 2008

Translated and/or compiled by Muhammad Abu Nasr, member, editorial board, the Free Arab Voice.

Friday, 15 February 2008.

  • US troops kill two civilians after Resistance sharpshooter wounds American soldier in al-Fallujah Friday afternoon.
  • Sectarian murder spree continues: four bodies found dumped around Baghdad Friday.
  • US helicopter attack kills eight members of family in al-Huwayjah.
  • Katyusha rockets blast Romanian occupation troops’ base near an-Nasiriyah.
  • British, Iraqi puppet regime troops reported among casualties in fierce battle with Jaysh al-Mahdi militiamen in al-Basrah.

Al-Anbar Province.
Ath-Tharthar.

Checkpoint manned by collaborationist “Awakening” puppet police attacked Friday afternoon.

In a dispatch posted at 6:30pm Baghdad time Friday evening, the Yaqen News Agency reported that men equipped with light and medium weapons and riding in four cars attacked a checkpoint manned by US-recruited tribal “Awakening” puppet police near ath-Tharthar, north of ar-Ramadi in al-Anbar Province on Friday afternoon.

Al-Fallujah.

US troops kill two civilians after Resistance sharpshooter wounds American soldier in al-Fallujah Friday afternoon.

In a dispatch posted at 4:55pm Baghdad time Friday afternoon, the Yaqen News Agency reported that an Iraqi Resistance marksman shot and wounded a US soldier on the outskirts of al-Fallujah, 60km west of Baghdad on Friday afternoon.

Baghdad.

Sectarian murder spree continues: four bodies found dumped around Baghdad Friday.

In a dispatch posted at 8:10pm Baghdad time Friday night, the Yaqen News Agency reported that the Iraqi puppet regime puppet police recovered the bodies of four more victims of sectarian murder that had been dumped around Baghdad on Friday.

Car bomb kills collaborationist “Awakening” puppet policeman in southwestern Baghdad Friday afternoon.

In a dispatch posted at 7:30pm Baghdad time Friday night, the Yaqen News Agency reported that a car bomb exploded in southwestern Baghdad on Friday afternoon.

Leader of collaborationist “Awakening” movement for all Iraq, survives assassination attempt Thursday evening.

In a dispatch posted at 10:20am Baghdad time Friday morning, the Yaqen News Agency reported that armed men ambushed the motorcade of the General Secretary of the American-recruited “Awakening” councils for all of Iraq as it drove through Baghdad Thursday.

At-Ta’mim Province.
Al-Huwayjah.

US helicopter attack kills eight members of family in al-Huwayjah.

In a dispatch posted at 1:15pm Baghdad time Friday afternoon, the Yaqen News Agency reported that eight members of one family were killed when two US helicopters struck the city of al-Huwayjah, 200km north of Baghdad.

Ninwa Province.
Tall ‘Afar.

Bombers strike Shi‘i mosque in Tall ‘Afar at time of midday Friday prayers.

In a dispatch posted at 5:49pm Baghdad time Friday evening, the Yaqen News Agency reported that two people wearing explosive vests blew themselves up at the entrance to a Shi ‘ mosque – the as-Sadiq Husayniyah – at the time of Friday congregational prayer in the town of Tall ‘Afar, 55km west of al-Mawsil in northwest Iraq.

Yaqen reported the government administrator for the Tall ‘Afar district as saying that preliminary counts listed four people as dead and 13 more as injured in the double attack. The official said that preliminary investigations indicated that the two attackers were Iraqis, adding that it was believed that they were of Turkoman ethnicity. He said that the explosive vests used in the blast had been made locally in Tall ‘Afar. No further details were immediately available.

Al-Mawsil.

US, puppet regime troops arrest five in al-Mawsil Friday morning.

In a dispatch posted at 1:30pm Baghdad time Friday afternoon, the Yaqen News Agency reported that a joint force of US and Iraqi puppet regime troops arrested five people in the al-Qayyarah area to the south of al-Mawsil on Friday morning.

Dhi Qar Province.
An-Nasiriyah.

Katyusha rockets blast Romanian occupation troops’ base near an-Nasiriyah.

In a dispatch posted at 4:22pm Baghdad time Friday afternoon, the Yaqen News Agency reported that six Katyusha rockets landed in the Romanian forces’ occupation base in Dhi Qar Province in southern Iraq. A source in the government puppet police said that two of the rockets exploded inside the environs of the base, but caused no damage or casualties.

Al-Basrah Province.
Al-Basrah.

Three puppet policemen wounded in attack in al-Basrah.

In a dispatch posted at 2pm Baghdad time Friday afternoon, the Yaqen News Agency reported that armed men shot and wounded three members of the puppet police force in al-Basrah.

British, Iraqi puppet regime troops reported among casualties in fierce battle with Jaysh al-Mahdi militiamen in al-Basrah.

In a dispatch posted at 11:30am Baghdad time Friday morning, the Yaqen News Agency reported that violent fighting erupted between members of the pro-Iranian Jaysh al-Mahdi militia and a joint force of British and Iraqi puppet regime troops in the southern city of al-Basrah. The battle broke when the British and puppet regime troops staged an airborne landing on the strategic line that runs from al-Basrah International Airport to Kuwait.

Yaqen reported eyewitnesses as saying that a large number of Jaysh al-Mahdi fighters and a number of British and Iraqi puppet regime troops were killed in the battle, in which rocket-propelled grenades and explosive devices were used.

Some sources reported that British forces had been scouting out the area of the fighting for two days prior to the engagement. The British troops were reportedly searching for armed men planting bombs along the highway to Kuwait. The sources said that clashes had in fact been taking place over the last two days between the Jaysh al-Mahdi and British forces, following the arrest of a Jaysh al-Mahdi commander. It was not known whether the British had as yet released the commander.

A British spokesman confirmed a press report that what he called “terrorist” attacks on the British and Iraqi puppet regime troops had taken place and he said that a campaign was underway to find and pursue the attackers.

http://www.albasrah.net/pages/mod.php?mod=art&lapage=../en_articles_2008/0208/iraqiresistancereport_150208.htm

Sources:
http://www.iraq-amsi.org/news.php?action=view&id=22704&997f6b3b03c5387c2961d9d060450a50
http://www.iraq-amsi.org/news.php?action=view&id=22690&f0800f4df323ba4d959818c7586bb290
http://www.iraq-amsi.org/news.php?action=view&id=22688&7756ac4d81e81ce213e8bdb22bd6d16d
http://www.islammemo.cc/article1.aspx?id=59628
http://www.islammemo.cc/article1.aspx?id=59623
http://www.arabic.xinhuanet.com/arabic/2008-02/15/content_577853.htm
http://www.arabic.xinhuanet.com/arabic/2008-02/15/content_577810.htm
http://www.arabic.xinhuanet.com/arabic/2008-02/15/content_577572.htm
http://www.arabic.xinhuanet.com/arabic/2008-02/15/content_577524.htm
http://www.arabic.xinhuanet.com/arabic/2008-02/15/content_577356.htm
http://www.arabic.xinhuanet.com/arabic/2008-02/15/content_577355.htm
http://www.arabic.xinhuanet.com/arabic/2008-02/15/content_577343.htm
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5424
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5422
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5421
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5420
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5417
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5416
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5415
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5413
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5411
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5410
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5409
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5408
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5407
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5405
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5404
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5403
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5402
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5401
http://www.yaqen.net/?p=5400
http://www.freearabvoice.org
http://www.albasrah.net/pages/mod.php?header=res1&mod=gis&rep=rep

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

UN official ‘shocked’ by Gaza visit

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

UN official ‘shocked’ by Gaza visit

Source: PA News

Last Modified: 15 Feb 2008

The UN’s top humanitarian affairs official said he was shocked by a “grim and miserable” situation he encountered during a visit to impoverished Gaza, and urged that the territory’s borders be opened.

Israel and Egypt severely restricted access to Gaza after the Islamic militant Hamas took control by force last June. Since then, Gaza’s private sector has largely collapsed, and poverty among the area’s 1.4 million residents has spread further, with some 80% now depending on some food aid.

John Holmes, the UN’s undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, toured Gaza as part of a four-day visit to the region. Also on his itinerary is a visit to the Israeli border town of Sderot near Gaza, hit hard by rockets fired by Gaza militants.

These news feeds are provided by an independent third party and Channel 4 is not responsible or liable to you for the same.

source: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/un+official+shocked+by+gaza+visit/1574652

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Reprinting of Danish cartoon could stoke fresh violence

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Reprinting of Danish cartoon could stoke fresh violence

Jan M. Olsen

The Associated Press

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (Feb 14, 2008)

Note: When a complete and total demonization of a people takes place can the gas-chambers be far behind?
*****************************************************

Danish newspapers reprinted cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a gesture of solidarity yesterday after police revealed a plot to kill the creator of the caricature that sparked deadly riots in the Muslim world.

Danish Muslims said they’d seek to avoid a repeat of the violence two years ago.

However, with a right-wing Dutch lawmaker planning to air a movie that condemns Islam as fascist, Europe pondered the possibility of a new cycle of turmoil.

“I just don’t want go through this again,” said Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim educational group in London.

Shafiq has written a protest letter to the Danish ambassador in London.

Other Muslim groups echoed his sentiments, saying they think Danish papers are seeking to rekindle the fiery debate over free speech and Islam that engulfed Europe during the uproar over the cartoons in 2006.

Some experts said that discussion never went away — it just drifted off the editorial pages of Europe’s dailies.

“This conflict will remain as long as there are people who believe religion should have a greater role in society,” said Magnus Norell, a Middle East expert at the Swedish Defence Research Agency.

More than a dozen papers in Denmark reprinted what was arguably the most controversial of the 12 cartoons that enraged Muslims in early 2006 when they appeared in Western newspapers.

The drawing, by newspaper cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, depicts Islam’s prophet wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse.

The papers said they wanted to show their firm commitment to freedom of speech after Tuesday’s arrest in western Denmark of three people accused of plotting to kill Westergaard.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favourable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

At least three European newspapers — in Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain — also reprinted the cartoon as part of their coverage of the Danish arrests.

The debate resurfaced recently in the Netherlands with lawmaker Geert Wilders’ plans to make an anti-Koran film portraying the religion as fascist and prone to inciting violence against women and homosexuals.

In Denmark, all eyes turned toward the Islamic Faith Community, a network of Muslim groups that many Danes say provoked the riots of 2006 by embarking on a Middle East tour.

The tour sought support for their fight against the paper that first published the cartoons, Jyllands-Posten.

Group spokesman Kasem Ahmad said even though printing the cartoons “was like a knife in our hearts,” the group would not take action this time.

In January and February of 2006, angry mobs burned the Danish flag and attacked Danish and other Western embassies in Muslim countries including Syria, Iran and Lebanon.

Danish products were boycotted by many Muslim consumers and protesters were killed in Libya and Afghanistan.

In Egypt, one observer said there was no guarantee that violence would not break out, and suggested Europe might be a possible stage.

“I’m against any violent reaction, but how can you control or expect to control the 15-20 million Muslims living in Europe,” said Fahmi Howeidy, an Egyptian writer.

The decision by the Danish papers to reprint Westergaard’s cartoon came in response to Tuesday’s news that intelligence police had arrested two Tunisians and a Danish citizen of Moroccan origin for plotting to kill Westergaard.

The Danish suspect was released Tuesday after questioning.

source:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=306450

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Former CIA official: Mossad behind Mugniyah killing

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Former CIA official: Mossad behind Mugniyah killing

Evidence in Damascus car bombing points to Israel, says Bruce Riedel, former advisor to three US presidents on Middle Eastern affairs. ‘This proves Israel has infiltrated Hizbullah,’ he notes, adding that Nasrallah has genuine reason for concern

Yitzhak Benhorin

Published: 02.13.08, 22:09 / Israel News

WASHINGTON – While Israel has formally refuted allegations it was involved in the assassination of Hizbullah ‘operations officer’ Imad Mugniyah in Damascus on Tuesday, former CIA official Bruce Riedel says all signs seem to indicate the Mossad was behind the killing.
Riedel, who spent over 30 years with the CIA before serving as a senior advisor on South Asian and Middle East affairs under three US presidents, said Israel has already carried out similar operations in Syria.
Currently a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute, he says Mugniyah’s assassination proves Israel has successfully infiltrated Hizbullah and that even Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah knows he may also be in the crosshairs.

“Israeli intelligence services have motive and they have proven their ability to strike in Damascus in the past. This is a significant operation, whether or not the Israelis want to publicly admit to it. He (Mugniyah) has topped the US and Israel’s most-wanted list for a quarter of a century,” said Riedel.

The seasoned intelligence official said he believes Mugniyah was not the only name on a possible hit list. “It definitely includes Hassan Nasrallah,” he said, “the Mossad is looking for Nasrallah and he knows it, that’s why he conducts his operations from underground.”

And the Hizbullah leader may have good reason to worry, said Riedel. “He’s wondering who tipped off Mugniyah’s location. That same individual could also reveal his own whereabouts.”

When asked if the United States did not also have a stake in seeing the elimination of a man responsible for the deaths of American citizens, among them a senior CIA figure, Riedel said that while it was true Mugniyah was responsible for the murder of William Buckley “and that as far as we’re concerned, he was
second only to Osama bin-Laden” – a car bombing was more consistent with the Mossad’s modus operandi.

“In all honesty over the years we’ve become busy with many other issues, while ever since the summer of 2006 Hizbullah has returned to the forefront of Israel’s concerns. Mugniyah also acted as a go-between with Iranian intelligence and Hamas.”

source:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3506535,00.html

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Plagiarism, Cover Up and Misrepresentations : The Case Against Alan Dershowitz

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Plagiarism, Cover Up and Misrepresentations

The Case Against Alan Dershowitz

A CounterPunch Special Report

By FRANK J. MENETREZ

February 11, 2008

In June 2007, DePaul University denied tenure to Norman Finkelstein, an assistant professor of political science. The decision ignited a firestorm of protest from DePaul students and faculty, as well as from faculty across the country and abroad. Finkelstein’s department had voted 9-3 in favor of tenure, and a college-level committee unanimously joined that recommendation, 5-0. But the University Board on Promotion and Tenure (UBPT) voted 4-3 against tenure, and DePaul’s president claimed to “find no compelling reasons to overturn the UBPT’s decision.”

The tenure denial was a great victory for Harvard Law School’s Professor Alan Dershowitz, who had been campaigning vigorously against Finkelstein at least since the fall of 2006. The feud between Dershowitz and Finkelstein began when Finkelstein claimed that Dershowitz’s book The Case for Israel (2003) was partially plagiarized and wholly false. Finkelstein eventually published his critique as part of a book of his own, entitled Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (2005). Dershowitz responded to Finkelstein’s charges in his book The Case for Peace (2005).

In September 2006, as Finkelstein’s tenure review got underway, Dershowitz sent a 7-page, single-spaced letter, plus 14 single-spaced pages of supporting materials, to the former chairman of Finkelstein’s department, arguing that Finkelstein’s “purported scholarship” consists of nothing but “ugly and false assertions” and “preposterous and discredited ad hominem attack[s].” Dershowitz sent a similar but even larger packet of materials-totaling over 60 pages-to a large but unknown number of members of DePaul’s faculty and administration, including every professor at the law school.

Those basic facts about the dispute are now fairly well known. What is not so well known is that there is compelling evidence that Dershowitz himself committed academic misconduct both before and in the course of his intervention in Finkelstein’s tenure case. I present that evidence below, along with some reflections on its ramifications for both DePaul and Harvard. In the end, this is not merely a story about two professors who dislike each other. It is a scandal implicating the leading institution of higher learning in the United States.

PLAGIARISM

In Beyond Chutzpah, Finkelstein argued that Dershowitz plagiarized a book called From Time Immemorial, by Joan Peters, by lifting several quotations and citations of primary sources directly from Peters’ book without acknowledging that he found them there. (Beyond Chutzpah, p. 230) Dershowitz categorically denied the charge. He claimed that although he was led to some primary sources by seeing them cited in Peters’ book, he always tried to check them before citing them. If he could not find a primary source himself, he cited Peters. If he was able to check the primary source, he cited it directly, without mentioning Peters. He argued that his failure to cite Peters in such circumstances is proper. (See The Case for Peace, p. 182)

Finkelstein’s principal response was that Dershowitz’s quotations and citations of primary sources (where Dershowitz did not cite Peters) contain obvious errors that Dershowitz would not have made if he had checked the primary sources himself, and that Dershowitz’s errors are identical to Peters’ errors concerning the same primary sources. (Beyond Chutzpah, pp. 230-231) Finkelstein inferred that Dershowitz copied the quotations and citations from Peters rather than checking the primary sources himself.

I have examined the texts relevant to one of the quotations implicated in Finkelstein’s argument, and I see no reasonable alternative to the conclusion that Finkelstein is correct. The quotation is from Mark Twain’s The Innocents Abroad. (See Beyond Chutzpah, p. 231) It appears on pages 23-24 of The Case for Israel and pages 159-160 of From Time Immemorial. Dershowitz’s version of the quotation omits two of the sentences that Peters’ version includes. Dershowitz also omits Peters’ italics and adds a few errors that Peters did not make. Apart from those discrepancies, Peters’ and Dershowitz’s versions of the quotation are identical, character for character.

I have checked Peters’ and Dershowitz’s versions of the quotation against the 1996 Oxford University Press edition of The Innocents Abroad, which is the edition Dershowitz cited. Peters’ version contains many errors, and Dershowitz’s version reproduces every one of them. The errors are:

1. Line 1: The original Twain (p. 485) says “this valley[.]” Both Peters and Dershowitz change “this” to “the” but fail to signal that they have altered the original.
2. Line 4: In the original Twain (p. 485), there are commas before and after the word “hereabouts[.]” Both Peters and Dershowitz omit the commas but fail to signal the omission (e.g., by using empty brackets).
3. Line 5: In the original Twain (p. 508), the words “Come to Galilee for that” form an entire sentence, ending with a period. Both Peters and Dershowitz follow the word “that” with an ellipsis that is not preceded by a concluding period, but they fail to signal the omission of the period (e.g., by using empty brackets). This cannot be attributed to a stylistic choice to omit the concluding period when a complete sentence is followed by an ellipsis, because on several occasions (e.g., lines 9, 10, and 11) both Peters and Dershowitz include concluding periods followed by ellipses.
4. Line 8: In the original Twain (p. 508), the word “Capernaum” is followed by a semicolon. Both Peters and Dershowitz follow it with a colon but fail to signal that they have altered the original.
5. Line 9: The original Twain (p. 508) says “six funereal plumes of palms[.]” Both Peters and Dershowitz say “six funereal palms[,]” omitting the words “plumes of” but failing to signal the omission.
6. Line 9: In the original Twain (p. 508), the word “palms” is followed by a semicolon and thus does not conclude the sentence. Both Peters and Dershowitz omit the semicolon and the remainder of the sentence but place the ellipsis after the concluding period instead of before it.
7. Line 9: In the original Twain (pp. 508, 520), the sentence containing the phrase “six funereal plumes of palms” and the sentence beginning “We reached Tabor” are separated by 12 pages and numerous intervening paragraphs. Both Peters and Dershowitz separate those sentences by a single ellipsis and no paragraph break, thus representing that the sentences are part of a single paragraph. This cannot be attributed to a stylistic choice to omit all paragraph structure from the quote, because Peters and Dershowitz did not omit all paragraph structure-they include a paragraph break at lines 10 to 11.
8. Line 10: In the original Twain (p. 520), the words “We reached Tabor safely” are followed by a comma and thus are not an entire sentence. Both Peters and Dershowitz omit the comma and the remainder of the sentence but place the ellipsis after the concluding period instead of before it.
9. Line 10: In the original Twain (p. 520), the words “We never saw a human being on the whole route” are followed by a comma and thus are not an entire sentence. Both Peters and Dershowitz omit the comma and the remainder of the sentence but follow the word “route” with a period and no ellipsis, either before or after the period.
10. Lines 10-11: In the original Twain (pp. 520, 607), the sentence containing the phrase “never saw a human being on the whole route” and the sentence beginning “Nazareth is forlorn” are separated by 87 pages and numerous intervening paragraphs, and “Nazareth is forlorn” occurs in the middle of a paragraph, not at the beginning. Both Peters and Dershowitz separate those sentences with a single paragraph break and no ellipses, representing them as the end and beginning of consecutive paragraphs.
11. Line 11: In the original Twain (p. 607), the words “Nazareth is forlorn” are followed by a semicolon. Both Peters and Dershowitz change the semicolon to a period but fail to signal that they have altered the original.
12. Line 11: In the original Twain (p. 607), the word “accursed” is followed by a comma. Both Peters and Dershowitz omit the comma but fail to signal the omission.
13. Line 11: In the original Twain (p. 607), the word “ruin” is followed by a comma. Both Peters and Dershowitz omit the comma but fail to signal the omission.
14. Line 12: The original Twain (p. 607) says “to-day,” but both Peters and Dershowitz omit the hyphen. (In the original Twain, the hyphen is not merely breaking the word at the end of a line of text; the word appears in the middle of a line.)
15. Line 15: The original Twain (p. 607) says “Saviour’s[.]” Both Peters and Dershowitz omit the letter “u” but fail to signal the omission.
16. Lines 16-17: In the original Twain (p. 607), no punctuation follows the word “sang[,]” and there are no quotation marks around the phrase “Peace on earth, good will to men[.]” Both Peters and Dershowitz follow “sang” with a comma and place quotation marks before “Peace” and after “men” but fail to signal that they have altered the original.
17. Line 17: In the original Twain (p. 607), the words “living creature” are followed by a comma and thus do not end the sentence in which they appear. Both Peters and Dershowitz omit the comma and the remainder of the sentence but place the ellipsis after the concluding period instead of before it.
18. Line 18: The original Twain (p. 608) says “Chorazin[.]” Both Peters and Dershowitz omit the letter “a,” spelling the word “Chorzin[,]” but fail to signal the omission.
19. Line 19: In the original Twain (p. 608), no punctuation follows the word “them[.]” Both Peters and Dershowitz erroneously follow “them” with a comma but fail to signal that they have altered the original.
20. Line 20: The original Twain (p. 608) says “Saviour’s[.]” Both Peters and Dershowitz omit the letter “u” but fail to signal the omission.

Line numbers refer to the lines of the Twain quote as it appears on pages 23-24 of The Case for Israel (2003 hardback edition), numbering the lines of the quote consecutively and without interruption from line 1 on page 23 to line 21 on page 24. It is possible that errors 6, 8, and 17 are the result of typesetting conventions that Peters’ and Dershowitz’s publishers may have followed. To my knowledge, none of the other identical errors can be so explained.

In addition, both Peters and Dershowitz (in the original hardback edition of The Case for Israel) cited the same pages of Twain (i.e., pages 349, 366, 375, and 441-442) as their source for the quotation. (The Case for Israel (2003 hardback edition), p. 246, n. 5; From Time Immemorial, p. 485, nn. 131, 133, 134) But those page citations are incorrect, both for the 1881 London edition of Twain, which Peters cited, and for the 1996 Oxford edition, which Dershowitz cited. In fact, none of the quoted text appears on any of the cited pages in either edition of The Innocents Abroad. In the 2004 paperback edition of The Case for Israel, Dershowitz corrected this error by citing the proper pages of the 1996 Oxford edition (i.e., pages 485, 508, 520, and 607-608), but he made no changes in the text of the quotation. (The Case for Israel (2004 paperback edition), pp. 23-24, 246, n. 5)

The cumulative weight of these identical errors strikes me as considerable. I do not see how Dershowitz could, purely by coincidence, have precisely reproduced all of Peters’ errors if he was working from the original Twain. Rather, the only reasonable inference seems to be that he copied the quotation from Peters. But Dershowitz does not cite Peters as his source for the quotation. He cites only Twain.

Dershowitz has never, to my knowledge, responded to Finkelstein’s argument concerning the identical errors in The Case for Israel and From Time Immemorial. With respect to the Twain quote, for example, he has said only that it cannot be seriously suggested that he did not find the quote on his own, because he claims that he can prove he has been quoting The Innocents Abroad in debates since the 1970s, long before Peters’ book was published. (See The Case for Peace, pp. 182, 232, n. 106) (The only “proof” Dershowitz has ever identified is his appearance in a televised debate on PBS’ The Advocates in 1970. I obtained a transcript of the debate and found that Dershowitz never quoted a word of, or even mentioned, Twain. I also asked Dershowitz if he had any other “proof” besides his appearance on The Advocates, but he refused to respond.)

Regardless of how long Dershowitz has been quoting Twain, however, I see no way of avoiding the inference that Dershowitz copied The Case for Israel’s Twain quotation directly from From Time Immemorial, not from the original source. I likewise see no way of avoiding the inference that, having copied the quotation from Peters, Dershowitz never checked it against the original source, because he failed to correct a single one of Peters’ 20 errors (including the omission of 87 pages of text without an ellipsis). Moreover, Dershowitz himself, rather than a research assistant, must have personally copied the quotation from Peters, because Dershowitz has insisted, in both his September 2006 letter to the former chairman of Finkelstein’s department and elsewhere, that he wrote every word of the text of The Case for Israel by hand. (See The Case for Peace, p. 181)

COVERUP

Dershowitz knew about Finkelstein’s identical errors argument long before he wrote his September 2006 letter. Finkelstein first raised the issue in an exchange with Dershowitz that was published in The Harvard Crimson on October 3, 2003. Alexander Cockburn, expressly relying upon Finkelstein, raised the issue again in an exchange with Dershowitz that was published on October 27, 2003, in The Nation magazine. Dershowitz responded to Cockburn in The Nation’s December 15, 2003, issue, but he never addressed the identical errors argument. Dershowitz did, however, correct some of the errors Finkelstein had pointed out, including the page citations for the Twain quote, in the paperback edition of The Case for Israel, which was published in August 2004. (See The Case for Israel (2003 hardback edition) pp. 20, 245, n. 16; The Case for Israel (2004 paperback edition) pp. 20, 246, n. 16) Finkelstein also included the identical errors argument in Beyond Chutzpah (see, e.g., pp. 230-231), which was published in August 2005. And the materials Dershowitz distributed to DePaul’s faculty and administration made clear that he had carefully scrutinized Beyond Chutzpah in its entirety. For all of these reasons, there seems to be no room for doubt that Dershowitz knew about Finkelstein’s identical errors argument for years before he sent his letter to DePaul in September 2006.

As I noted in the previous section, however, Dershowitz has never responded to the argument. In fact, to my knowledge, he has never acknowledged that Finkelstein made such an argument. Instead, Dershowitz has sought to portray the entire plagiarism controversy as a dispute about citation style. In The Case for Peace, he contended that Finkelstein’s charge of plagiarism was merely that Dershowitz should have cited Peters for every source that he first encountered in Peters’ book, rather than citing her for only those sources he did not independently check himself. (See p. 182 [“This became the charge of plagiarism-that I cited some quotations to their original sources rather than all of them to the secondary source in which I first came across them.”]) Dershowitz took a similar approach in his September 2006 letter, stating with respect to the plagiarism controversy that “much of it turns on the definition of plagiarism: whether it is proper to find a quotation in one source, check it against the original source, and cite to the original, rather than the secondary, source.”

Dershowitz’s characterizations of the dispute are demonstrably incorrect. The identical errors argument, which lies at the heart of Finkelstein’s case, shows that the plagiarism charge is not a technical matter about citation style or about the definition of plagiarism. Rather, it is factual dispute about whether Dershowitz copied primary source material directly from Peters without citing Peters and without checking the primary source himself. Again, Dershowitz has known this since the fall of 2003. It thus appears that Dershowitz’s strategy from the start has been to pretend that this factual dispute does not exist and to hope that no one will notice.

Dershowitz claims that he personally asked Harvard to investigate Finkelstein’s plagiarism charges. (The Case for Peace, p. 233, n. 113) Dershowitz has also stated unequivocally that Harvard did investigate and reject the charges in their entirety. In his letter to the former chair of Finkelstein’s department, Dershowitz wrote that he “was completely cleared of that charge [i.e., plagiarism] by an independent Harvard University investigation.” (See also The Case for Peace, pp. 183 [“Finkelstein was furious that Harvard cleared me of his entirely false and politically motivated charges of plagiarism.”], 184, 233, n. 113) In Beyond Chutzpah, Finkelstein likewise reported that the director of Harvard Law School’s office of communications informed him that Harvard “looked into the charges against Dershowitz and ‘found that no plagiarism had occurred.'” (p. 254)

Neither Dershowitz nor Harvard, however, has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue.

In order to obtain a definitive answer to that question, I emailed Harvard Law School’s associate dean for academic affairs, Catherine Claypoole, with a copy to Dershowitz. After describing the background, I asked, “When Harvard looked into the plagiarism charges against Professor Dershowitz, did Harvard investigate the issue of allegedly identical errors in From Time Immemorial and The Case for Israel?” A staff assistant forwarded my message to the law school’s communications office.

While I was waiting to hear from the administration, I began receiving heated and not entirely coherent responses from Dershowitz. The most noteworthy feature of Dershowitz’s replies is that despite repeated opportunities to answer my question about whether Harvard had investigated the identical errors issue, he never did. He did not even say that he believed they had investigated it. Rather, he stuck to his previous pattern of refusing to acknowledge that the issue even existed, and he repeated his claim that he had been quoting some of the relevant primary sources long before Peters’ book was published.

Ten days after emailing Dean Claypoole, I still had heard nothing from the communications office, so I contacted its director, Mike Armini. Less than one hour later, he sent me the following message: “Hello Mr. Menetrez. I don’t have anything more to add other than what I said a couple of years ago. The accusations made by Professor Finkelstein were investigated by Harvard University and it was determined that plagiarism did not occur. This has been widely reported. We do not plan to provide any further detail on this matter. Are you writing for a specific publication?” In reply, I asked whether Armini was declining to confirm or deny that Harvard investigated the identical errors issue. He did not respond. I sent two more follow-up inquiries but never heard from him again.

Having failed to obtain an answer from the law school’s administration, I wrote to Dershowitz and posed the same question I had originally directed to the academic affairs office. In the course of the long and peculiar correspondence that ensued, Dershowitz again repeated his claim that he has been quoting Twain since the 1970s, which is of course irrelevant to my question about the scope of Harvard’s investigation. He also echoed Armini’s general claim that Harvard investigated all of Finkelstein’s allegations. But Dershowitz kept to his longstanding pattern of refusing to acknowledge that Finkelstein’s allegations include the identical errors argument, so his claim that Harvard investigated all of Finkelstein’s allegations is, in this context, meaningless.

Like Armini, Dershowitz never specifically confirmed that Harvard investigated Finkelstein’s identical errors argument. Nor did he even claim that he believed, perhaps mistakenly, that Harvard investigated it. Nor did he express surprise or disquiet at Armini’s failure to confirm that Harvard investigated the argument. And at certain points he actually feigned ignorance of the entire matter, asking me for specific examples of allegedly identical errors even after I had referred him to the Finkelstein and Cockburn articles mentioned above, which contain specific examples.

One of Dershowitz’s messages did appear to yield one new piece of potentially relevant information, but the appearance was quickly dispelled. While still failing to acknowledge that the identical errors argument had ever been made by Finkelstein, Dershowitz did nonetheless refer to the argument at one point: He claimed that he had brought the argument to the attention of Harvard’s administration some time before I emailed Dean Claypoole in August 2007. He did not, however, say exactly when he did it. In response, I asked him to identify any members of the administration whom he had told about the argument before Harvard conducted its investigation. He refused.

Incidentally, Dershowitz could easily have alerted Harvard’s administration to the plagiarism charges without telling them about the identical errors argument, because when Finkelstein (in a September 24, 2003, debate with Dershowitz on the radio program Democracy Now!) and Cockburn (in a column in the October 13, 2003, issue of The Nation) first accused Dershowitz of plagiarism, neither of them mentioned the identical errors argument. If Harvard’s investigators read only the debate transcript and Cockburn’s column of October 13, 2003, they would never have encountered the identical errors issue at all. But again, Dershowitz knew about the issue no later than December 2003, and probably as early as October 3, 2003.

Once my correspondence with Dershowitz was concluded, I forwarded all of it to Harvard’s administration, to give them an opportunity to comment on it if they wished. I received no response.

The failure of both Harvard and Dershowitz to provide a straight answer to my question about whether Harvard investigated Finkelstein’s identical errors argument, despite my persistent inquiries spanning nearly one month, strongly suggests that Harvard did not investigate the argument and that Dershowitz has known it all along. There is no other plausible interpretation of their refusal to answer my question, or of Dershowitz’s continuing refusal to acknowledge that the argument has been central to Finkelstein’s charge of plagiarism ever since October 2003.

Moreover, putting aside my email correspondence with Harvard and Dershowitz, I believe the evidence concerning the Twain quote independently establishes that Harvard did not know about the identical errors argument before conducting its investigation, because I take for granted that the Harvard administration is neither hopelessly corrupt nor intellectually incompetent. If the administration had known about the argument, they would have investigated it, because they are not corrupt. If they had investigated it, they would have found the same massive evidence that I found, because they are not incompetent. And if they had found that massive evidence, they would not have cleared Dershowitz, because they are not corrupt.

Nor could Harvard have missed the fact that copying the Twain quote from Peters without citing Peters would be a straightforward violation of Harvard’s own standards for student writing. (See Beyond Chutzpah, p. 254) Harvard’s pamphlet Writing with Sources: A Guide for Students (1998) states: “QUOTING OR CITING A PASSAGE YOU FOUND QUOTED OR CITED BY ANOTHER SCHOLAR: when you haven’t actually read the original source, cite the passage as ‘quoted in’ or ‘cited in’ that scholar-both to credit that person for finding the quoted passage or cited text, and to protect yourself in case he or she has misquoted or misrepresented . . . .” (Section 2.1) No honest and competent investigation by Harvard would have held Dershowitz to a lower standard than Harvard sets for its freshmen.

Harvard Law School’s guidelines for student writing do not expressly address this specific issue, but the guidelines are at least as demanding as those spelled out in Writing with Sources. The law school guidelines provide that “[a]ll work submitted by a student for any academic or non-academic exercise is expected to be the student’s own work. In the preparation of their work, students should always take great care to distinguish their own ideas and knowledge from information derived from sources.” The guidelines go on to state that “[t]he responsibility for learning the proper forms of citation lies with the individual student. Quotations must be properly placed within quotation marks and must be fully cited.” Finally, under the guidelines, “[s]tudents who submit work that is not their own without clear attribution of all sources, even if inadvertently, will be subject to disciplinary action.”

If Harvard never investigated the identical errors issue and Dershowitz has always known that, and if I am also right that Finkelstein’s charge concerning the Twain quote is sound, then Dershowitz has committed academic misconduct on several levels.

First, he plagiarized the Twain quotation from Peters without citing her, just as Finkelstein originally alleged.

Second, Dershowitz made repeated and public misrepresentations about that misconduct, characterizing Finkelstein’s plagiarism charges as politically motivated and wholly lacking in merit. See, for example, The Case for Peace: “[T]here was no plagiarism.” (p. 182) “Finkelstein’s claim of plagiarism against me is laughable.” (p. 182) “Finkelstein, of course, knows that his politically motivated accusations against me are complete fabrications . . . .” (p. 184)

Third, in his September 2006 letter to the former chairman of Finkelstein’s department, Dershowitz deliberately attempted to deceive the DePaul faculty concerning the merits of Finkelstein’s then-pending tenure case by falsely claiming that Harvard had independently investigated Finkelstein’s plagiarism charges – which Dershowitz knew included the identical errors issue – and “completely cleared” him. In so doing, Dershowitz threw the full institutional weight of Harvard University behind his efforts to cover up his own misconduct, which Finkelstein had exposed.

DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION

At the end of the fourth paragraph of his September 2006 letter, Dershowitz addressed Finkelstein’s discussion of Dershowitz’s proposal that Israel should destroy entire Palestinian villages in response to Palestinian terrorist attacks. In Beyond Chutzpah, Finkelstein wrote that Dershowitz

advocates not only individual house demolitions but also “the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations” after each Palestinian attack. “The response will be automatic.” Such massive destruction, he concludes, will further the “noble causes” of reducing terrorism and promoting peace. . . . It is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice [a Czech village destroyed by the Nazis in retaliation for the assassination of a Nazi officer], for which he expresses abhorrence-except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it.
(Beyond Chutzah, pp. 175-176)

Finkelstein cited Dershowitz’s March 11, 2002, column in the Jerusalem Post as his source for the quotations concerning the “automatic” destruction of entire villages. (Beyond Chutzpah, p. 175, n. 19) I have checked the quotations myself, and they are accurate – Dershowitz did propose the destruction of entire villages, just as Finkelstein claimed.

In his September 2006 letter, Dershowitz criticized Finkelstein for

his oft-maid [sic] claim, found on page 176 of Beyond Chutzpah, that “It is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence-except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it.” The trouble is that the policy and passage Finkelstein quotes actually says, “[Israel] would then publicly declare precisely how it will respond in the event of another terrorist act, such as by destroying empty houses in a particular village that has been used as a base for terrorists, and naming that village in advance.” In Finkelstein’s world, “destroying empty houses” in order to deter terrorism is the equivalent of genocide. (Emphasis added)

Dershowitz developed the same argument at greater length in the packet of materials he sent to DePaul’s faculty and administration.

Dershowitz’s quotation concerning “destroying empty houses,” however, comes from his book Why Terrorism Works (2002) and does not appear in his Jerusalem Post column. It is therefore not true that “the policy and passage Finkelstein quotes actually says” what Dershowitz claims it says. Finkelstein accurately quoted the policy and passage from the Jerusalem Post column, which proposed the destruction of entire villages and said nothing about destroying only empty houses. Finkelstein cited the Jerusalem Post as his source for the quotation. The language Finkelstein quoted does not appear in Why Terrorism Works. It is consequently unmistakable that Finkelstein was quoting (and comparing to Lidice) the Jerusalem Post proposal concerning the destruction of entire villages, not the Why Terrorism Works proposal concerning the destruction of only empty houses.

The problem here is not merely that Dershowitz is wrong. Everyone makes mistakes. What makes Dershowitz’s charge appear to be an instance of academic misconduct is that there appears to be no way that Dershowitz could have honestly (but mistakenly) believed that Finkelstein was quoting, and comparing to Lidice, the Why Terrorism Works proposal concerning empty houses, rather than the Jerusalem Post proposal concerning entire villages. Dershowitz purported to be correcting the record concerning the “policy and passage Finkelstein quotes[.]” Dershowitz therefore must have looked at Finkelstein’s citation to see what passage Finkelstein claimed (correctly) to be quoting. And finding that Finkelstein claimed (correctly) to be quoting the Jerusalem Post, Dershowitz quoted something from Why Terrorism Works and claimed (falsely) that that’s what the passage Finkelstein quoted really said. That is not a mistake. It appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation.

It also bears emphasis that this misrepresentation appears in the fourth paragraph of Dershowitz’s 4,000-word letter. Thus, even readers who lacked the patience to read the whole letter, or who might be inclined to dismiss Dershowitz as biased, would likely be misled. Any reader who assumed that Dershowitz would not brazenly misrepresent the contents of his own or Finkelstein’s writings would be left thinking, “Well, that is pretty bad-Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of proposing the destruction of entire villages, when Dershowitz was talking about only empty houses.”

If this was not an honest mistake by Dershowitz, but rather a deliberate misrepresentation, then it would seem to constitute academic misconduct. It would be a deliberate attempt to deceive the DePaul faculty concerning the merits of a pending tenure case.

THE DAMAGE DONE

It would be wrong to dismiss the dispute between Dershowitz and Finkelstein as merely a personal squabble between two professors. Rather, the affair should be of institutional concern for both DePaul and Harvard. The institutional concern for DePaul is self-evident: The injection of deliberately deceptive material into a pending tenure case is an extremely serious matter because it has the potential to undermine the integrity of the university’s promotion decisions.

That concern is particularly acute in this case because it appears that Dershowitz’s deceptions not only had the potential to influence Finkelstein’s tenure review process but also that they did in fact play a decisive role. Recall that Dershowitz did not just send a 7-page letter – together with 14 pages of supporting materials – to the former chair of DePaul’s political science department. He also sent a similar but more extensive packet of materials to a large proportion of DePaul’s faculty and administration, including every professor in the law school. And although DePaul’s Faculty Governance Council received assurances that “the integrity of the [tenure review] process would be protected” from Dershowitz’s interference, the council’s chairman, Gil Gott, states that, to his knowledge, “no specific protections were introduced to remedy already-existing problems, such as any lingering false impressions that Alan Dershowitz’s packet may have created in the minds of faculty members or administrators who served on or influenced decision-making bodies in the case.” (Chronicle of Higher Education, June 12, 2007)

DePaul’s president has claimed nonetheless that Finkelstein’s tenure review process “maintained its independence” from the lobbying efforts of “outside interests.” But there is good evidence that Dershowitz’s campaign did undermine the process, because the university’s stated basis for denying tenure to Finkelstein appears to be transparently pretextual. According to the president, the UBPT voted against Finkelstein because his “scholarship does not meet DePaul’s tenure standards.” The UBPT based that judgment on its determination that Finkelstein’s writings might not “contribute[] to the public discourse on sensitive societal issues” because of Finkelstein’s alleged “inflammatory style” and use of “personal attacks.”

Here are some of the relevant facts: Finkelstein has published five books, one of them co-authored. Four were published before DePaul hired him as a tenure-track assistant professor. Some of those four were reissued in expanded editions while he was at DePaul. His fifth book, Beyond Chutzpah, was published while he was at DePaul, and it was published by a more prestigious university press than any of his previous works. Beyond Chutzpah does not differ materially in style or the use of “personal attacks” from Finkelstein’s previous books, and, to my knowledge, not even Dershowitz has ever claimed that it does. If anything, Beyond Chutzpah strikes me as more moderate in tone than its predecessors.

Tenure-track faculty are given annual reviews evaluating their performance in all areas relevant to eligibility for tenure. Finkelstein’s annual reviews at DePaul expressed nothing but enthusiasm about his scholarship. Even the annual review dealing with his manuscript for Beyond Chutzpah contained not a word of criticism of Finkelstein’s scholarship.

DePaul’s stated grounds for denying Finkelstein tenure consequently seem impossible to take seriously. The style of his first four books cannot have disqualified him from receiving tenure, because they were already in print when DePaul hired him into a tenure-track position. Thus, those books must have made him a promising candidate for tenure, not the reverse. If those books nonetheless contained flaws that Finkelstein needed to avoid in his subsequent work in order to get tenure, then his annual reviews would have said so. In fact, they said nothing of the sort. And Beyond Chutzpah, which (1) was issued by a more prestigious academic press than anything Finkelstein had published before, (2) contained nothing new in terms of “inflammatory style” or “personal attacks,” and (3) received not a word of criticism from his department in his annual review, can only have strengthened his case for tenure.

I conclude that the president’s claim – that Finkelstein’s scholarship does not meet DePaul’s standards for tenure – cannot be true. And even the UBPT conceded that “[b]y all accounts” Finkelstein is “an excellent teacher, popular with his students and effective in the classroom.” It follows that there must be some other explanation for why Finkelstein was denied tenure. Dershowitz’s campaign seems the most likely candidate.

HARVARD’S ROLE

All of these considerations serve to heighten the institutional concerns for Harvard. First, both plagiarism and deliberate misrepresentation of a professor’s work, particularly in the context of a pending tenure case, are matters of academic integrity, and Harvard presumably takes such matters very seriously.

Second, because of Dershowitz’s repeated but apparently false claim that Harvard “completely cleared” him of Finkelstein’s charges, Harvard has been made an unwitting accomplice in Dershowitz’s wrongdoing. If my analysis is sound, then Dershowitz deliberately deceived DePaul not only about the plagiarism itself but also about the investigation that Harvard allegedly conducted. He used his purported acquittal by Harvard to bolster his own false claim of innocence, which in turn supported his claims that Finkelstein’s charges were “politically motivated” and “complete fabrications.”

Now that Dershowitz’s misrepresentations have been exposed, Harvard cannot permit them to go uncorrected. If someone were revealed as falsely claiming to be a Harvard professor, perhaps making speeches or writing letters of recommendation in Harvard’s name, Harvard would never stand for it – the university would issue an official statement setting the record straight. Dershowitz’s deceptions are no less serious. He has sought to sabotage Finkelstein’s tenure case on the basis of an official exoneration by Harvard that, on one of Finkelstein’s central allegations, apparently never took place.

I do not mean to be suggesting whether, or in what way, Harvard should discipline Dershowitz for the misconduct I have described. How Harvard addresses misbehavior by its faculty members is Harvard’s business, not mine. But this is not just between Harvard and Dershowitz, or between Dershowitz and Finkelstein. Rather, Harvard has a moral obligation to Finkelstein to acknowledge, at a bare minimum, that it has never completely cleared Dershowitz of Finkelstein’s plagiarism charges, because it has never rejected Finkelstein’s argument concerning the identical errors in The Case for Israel and From Time Immemorial.

As of this writing, Dershowitz appears to have succeeded in protecting his own career by destroying Finkelstein’s. It is now probably too late to remedy all of the harm that Dershowitz’s conduct has caused, both to the review of Finkelstein’s tenure application and to public perceptions of Finkelstein and his work. But some sort of acknowledgement or apology by Harvard concerning Dershowitz’s wrongdoing might go some distance toward clearing the air and making amends.

Frank J. Menetrez received his PhD in philosophy and JD from UCLA. This essay is drawn from his epilogue to the paperback edition of Norman G. Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, forthcoming from the University of California Press. He can be reached at frankmenetrez@yahoo.com.

source:
http://www.counterpunch.com/menetrez02122008.html

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Press Release : British Muslims Stand up to be Counted as Equal Citizens

Posted by musliminsuffer on February 16, 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Press Release

British Muslims Stand up to be Counted as Equal Citizens

Date 14th February 2008

We, the British Muslim community, are a rich mosaic bound by the universality of our faith. We have diverse origins, cultures and schools of thought which all strengthen our communities.

We are united in the belief that our faith, along with other faiths, can be a force for good for Britain. As British Muslims we reaffirm our conviction in the British values of fair play and the rule of law and we see no incompatibility in these principles with Islam whose fundamental tenets include the pursuit of social justice. The values of fair play should apply when actions of a tiny minority amongst us are used to judge and condemn us as communities and as a faith.

We do not seek parallel legal systems, nor do we aim to enforce on anyone any particular code or way of life. But we do expect a fair discourse free from the current shrill hysteria screaming of impending doom from invading hordes.

Notwithstanding the barrage of hysteria and demonisation; despite the innuendo of disloyalty that bedevils our leaders and our institutions, and even though our media and public officials happily marginalise our faith and community, we are determined to redouble our efforts and seek the common good and reaffirm that we are equal citizens.

As many of our opinion-formers have now have proven to be incapable of creating a positive discourse, it is down to us, at grassroots level, to dispel the misconceptions, the hatred and the divisive extremism both against as well as amongst Muslims.

We urge all fellow British Muslims to reach out and create positive connections with neighbours and friends. We remind ourselves that with rights comes responsibilities and that we remain at all times accountable to God for our thoughts as well as deeds.

Issued by the Muslim Council of Britain, the British Muslim Forum and a coalition of Muslim and concerned organisations.

[ENDS]
Notes to Editors:

The Muslim Council of Britain is the UK’s largest Muslim umbrella body with over 500 affiliated national, regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools.

Media enquiries should be addressed to the MCB Media Office on 0845 26 26 786 or 07956 353 738. Email: media@mcb.org.uk.

Non-media enquiries should be addressed to the MCB Office at The Muslim Council of Britain, PO Box 57330 , London E1 2WJ . Tel: 0845 26 26 786 Fax: 0207 247 7079

This press release and other MCB publications and information are available on the MCB website at www.mcb.org.uk.

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »