The Negative Media Campaign against Muslims and Zionism, US Support for Israel


New Member
Well , dear friend the jews have it in their religious scriptures that the area between the nile river and Euphrates river rightfully belongs to them. They call it the promised land and due to this reason crusades was launched in the year 1000 (approx) or so , with a lot of support from the Vatican because both jews and christians considered Islam to be threat to their survival . If we go back and check with history , at that period the Islamic empire stretched from the present chinese Xinjiang to the whole of Spain all of northern and mid africa included . When internal disputes broke out between Islamic provincial governors , the Vatican and Jews unitedly sought to use this opportunity , the Jews to capture the promised land and the Christians to ensure their dominance in future.

NOW U TELL ME DEAR ME FRIEND IS IT WRONG TO PROTECT UR RELIGION AND THE PLACE U LIVE IN WHEN AN OUTSIDER THREATENS U ??? That explains y the Palestinians r fighting against the Gaza occupation plans of Israel !!!
I hope i have conveyed everything clearly and correctly .

New Report Identifies Organizational Nexus of Islamophobia

by Jim Lobe - August 27, 2011

A small group of inter-connected foundations, think tanks, pundits, and bloggers is behind the 10-year-old campaign to promote fear of Islam and Muslims in the U.S., according to a major investigative report released here Friday by the Center for American Progress (CAP).

The 130-page report, "Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America," identifies seven foundations that have quietly provided a total of more than 42 million dollars to key individuals and organizations that have spearheaded the nationwide effort between 2001 and 2009.

They include funders that have long been associated with the extreme right in the U.S., as well as several Jewish family foundations that have supported right-wing and settler groups in Israel.

The network also includes what the report calls "misinformation experts" – including:

Frank Gaffney
of the Center for Security Policy (CSP),
Daniel Pipes
of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum (MEF),
Steven Emerson
of the Investigative Project on Terrorism,
David Yerushalmi
of the Society of Americans for National Existence, and
Robert Spencer
of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) –

who are often tapped by television news networks and right-wing radio talk shows to comment on Islam and the threat it allegedly poses to U.S. national security.

"Together, this core group of deeply intertwined individuals and organizations manufacture and exaggerate threats of ‘creeping Sharia’, Islamic domination of the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence against all non-Muslims by the Quran," according to the report whose main author, Wajahat Ali, described the group as "the central nervous system of the Islamophobia network."

"This small band of radical ideologues has fought to define Sharia as a ‘totalitarian ideology’ and legal-political-military doctrine committed to destroying Western civilization," the report said. "But a scholar of Islam and Muslim tradition would not recognize their definition of Sharia, let alone a lay practicing Muslim."

Nonetheless, the group’s messages receive wide dissemination by what the report calls an "Islamophobia echo chamber" consisting of leaders of the Christian Right, such as Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson, and some Republican politicians, such as presidential candidates Representative Michele Bachmann and former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.

Other key disseminators include media figures, especially prominent hosts on the Fox News Channel and columnists in the Washington Times the National Review; as well as grassroots groups, such as ACT! For America, local "Tea Party" movements, and the American Family Association, which are behind current efforts by Republican-dominated state legislatures to ban Sharia in their jurisdictions.

The report also cited the Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI), a press-monitoring agency created here in 1998 by former officers in the Israel Defense Force that translates selected items from Middle Eastern print and broadcast media, as a key part of the broader network, providing it with material to bolster its claims regarding the threat posed by Islam. MEMRI, which has just been awarded a State Department contract to monitor anti-Semitism in the Arab media, has often been accused of selectively spotlighting media voices that show anti-western bias and promote extremism.

Judging by recent polls, the network has proved remarkably successful, according to the report which cited a 2010 Washington Post poll that showed that 49 percent of U.S. citizens held an unfavorable view of Islam, an increase of ten percent from 2002.

The same network also succeeded in inciting a national controversy around the proposed construction of an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan – the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" – which, according to Gaffney and others, was intended celebrate the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and "to be a permanent, in-our-face beachhead for Sharia, a platform for inspiring the triumphalist ambitions of the faithful."

"It’s remarkable what a small number of people have achieved with a small group of committed and generous donors," said Eli Clifton, a co-author of the report and a national-security reporter at CAP, a think tank which is close to the administration of President Barack Obama, who has himself been a prime target of the Islamophobic network.

The report, which was funded by the financier George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI), comes at a particularly sensitive moment – just two weeks before the tenth anniversary of 9/11 and less than a month after the murders of 76 people in Norway by Anders Breivik whose Internet manifesto not only echoed themes propagated by the key U.S. Islamophobic ideologues, but also quoted directly from their writings in dozens of passages.

Indeed, Spencer’s blog, Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, another group identified by the report as part of the Islamophobic network, was cited 162 times, while Pipes and the MEF receive 16 mentions, and Gaffney’s CSP another eight.

According to the report, Jihad Watch has been supported via the Horowitz Center primarily by the Fairbrook Foundation, which is run by Aubry and Joyce Chernik. Between 2004 and 2009, Fairbrook provided nearly 1.5 million dollars to Islamophobic groups, including Act! For America, CSP, the Investigative Project, and MEF.

The Cherniks also supported the far-right Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and Aish Hatorah, a far-right Israeli group behind the U.S.-based Clarion Fund, which produced the video, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West that was, in turn, heavily promoted by the Islamophobic groups featured in the report. Breivik praised it in his manifesto.

Some 28 million DVD copies of the Obsession film were distributed to households in key swing states on the eve of the 2008 presidential elections in an apparent effort to sway voters against Obama. Some 17 million dollars in funding for their distribution was provided by a Chicago industrialist, Barry Seid, according to a report published last year, and was channeled through Virginia-based Donors Capital Fund, which includes several prominent right-wing and neoconservative figures on its board.

Donors to the Fund have also contributed 400,000 dollars to the Investigative Project and 2.3 million dollars to the MEF between 2001 and 2009, according to the report.

Other major donors to Islamophobic groups include several foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife; including 2.9 million dollars to CSP and 3.4 million dollars to Horowitz’ Freedom Center. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which has often coordinated its political philanthropy with Scaife’s foundations, provided some 300,000 dollars to MEF, 815,000 dollars to CSP and 3.4 million dollars to the Freedom Center. In addition to more traditional charitable activities, both Scaife and Bradley have long been major supporters of far-right and neoconservative causes.

Other major donors included the Newton D. and Rochelle F. Becker foundations, the Russell Berrie Foundation, and the Anchorage Charitable Foundation and William Rosenwald Family Fund, according to the report.

In its mission statement, the Russell Berrie Foundation cited as one of its principal goals "fostering the spirit of religious understanding and pluralism".

"The intellectual nexus of the network is well understood," said Faiz Shakir, CAP’s vice president. "We know it’s driven primarily by hatred against Muslims; what we don’t know is what are the motivations of the funders. We don’t know to what extent they are aware of what is being funded," he said.

Horowitz denounced the report in a statement issued on its website, calling it a "typical fascistic attempt to silence critics and scare donors from supporting their efforts to inform the American public about the threats we face from the Islamic jihad."

Efforts to obtain comments from MEF and CSP were not successful.

Fear, Inc.

The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America -

Download this report (pdf) -


Funders of Islamophobia in US named

Aug 28, 2011

Shocking new report reveals that seven foundations and wealthy donors have been behind the 10-year campaign to spread Islamophobia in the US.

The 130 page report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) released on Friday, identified foundations that have provided more than USD 42 million to key individuals and organizations that have spearheaded the nationwide effort between 2001 and 2009.

"Sometimes the money flowing from these foundations and their donors is clearly designed to promote Islamophobia, but more often the support provided is for general purpose use, which is the think tanks and grassroots organizations then put to use on their primary purpose -- spreading their messages of hate and fear as far and wide as they can," the report says.

Among the funders are organizations that have long been associated with the extreme right in the US, as well as several Jewish family foundations that have supported settler groups in Israel.

Donors Capital Fund, Richard Melton Scaife foundations, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust, Russell Berrie Foundation, Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund, Fairbrook Foundation, are among the organizations funding anti Islam experts who promote Islamophobia.

These experts are - among others - Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy, David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence, Daniel Pipes at Middle East Forum, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America, Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, These people spread the information through conservative organizations, politicians and news channels like Fox, the report says.

The Donor Capital Fund was the single biggest contributor paying USD 18 million, to the Clarion Fund during the 2008 election which distributed 30 million anti-Muslim DVDs through local newspapers.

Download this report (
pdf) -


It's no coincidence or media bias that they report all the lies about Islam and Muslims; it is a deliberate and planned effort by the enemies of Islam to attack Islam and the Muslims!

US Empire foments Islamophobia

Sep 1, 2011


Fear, Inc; The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, an in-depth investigation

An investigation conducted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has revealed that a small networked group of misinformation experts are guiding the rising wave of Islamophobia in the US through effective use of advocates, media partners, and grassroots organizing.

Due to the efforts of this network, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America.

According to a poll conducted jointly by ABC News/Washington Post in 2010, only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Islam which is the lowest favorability rating since 2001.

A 2010 Time magazine poll showed that 28 percent of Americans do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the US Supreme Court and nearly one third of the country thinks followers of Islam should be barred from running for president.

On July 22, a 32-year-old, white, blond-haired and blue-eyed Norwegian man named Anders Breivik planted a bomb in an Oslo government building that killed eight people. A few hours after the explosion, he shot and killed 68 people, mostly teenagers, at a Labor Party youth camp on Norway's Utoya Island.

During his trial, Breivik told the court that violence was “necessary” to save Europe from Marxism and “Muslimization.”

Breivik presented the court with a 1,500-page manifesto, in which he advocated “brutal and breathtaking operations which will result in casualties” to fight the alleged “ongoing Islamic Colonization of Europe.”

Breivik's manifesto contains numerous footnotes and citations to the aforementioned group of misinformation experts, quoting them as experts on Islam's “war against the West.”

This is a small example of the group's influence in shaping the national and international political debate. Their names are heralded within communities that are actively organizing against Islam and targeting Muslims in the United States and other countries.

Leading Figures

Five major figures, who lead five key think tanks, are orchestrating the majority of misinformation about Islam and Muslims in America today. This small network produces talking points and messages relied upon and repeated by every segment of this interconnected network of money, grassroots leaders, media talking heads, and elected officials.

· Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy
· David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence
· Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum
· Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America
· Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism

This group of radical ideologues has fought to define Sharia as a “totalitarian ideology” and “legal-political-military doctrine” committed to destroying Western civilization.

Frank Gaffney
is one of the lead engineers of the “anti-Sharia” movement sweeping the nation. His think tank released the 2010 report “Shariah: The Threat to America,” which reframed Sharia, or Islamic religious law followed by any practicing Muslim, as a “totalitarian ideology” and “legal-political-military doctrine.”

Gaffney also founded the Center for Security Policy in 1988, which, among other anti-Islam activities, launched a campaign against mosques to introduce them as “Trojan horses” used by Muslims to promote “sedition” in the US.

The controversy in 2010 surrounding the Park51 community center in lower Manhattan reveals how these experts perpetuate the notion that mosques are no longer houses of worship but “Trojan horses” harboring and disseminating radical Islamic theology.

On June 30, 2010, Gaffney wrote, “The Ground Zero mosque is designed to be a permanent, in-our-face beachhead for Shariah, a platform for inspiring the triumphalist ambitions of the faithful.

The CSP then created and funded; the official website of the Coalition to Honor Ground Zero and a who's who of radical right-wing leaders, organizations, and notable anti-Muslim advocates

These allies working through were responsible for manufacturing the 2010 hysteria around the construction of the Park51 community center.

Gaffney is also promoting a conspiracy theory that Muslim American civil liberties organizations are proxies for the Muslim Brotherhood and pave the way for radical Islam.

According to Gaffney “it is now public knowledge that nearly every major Muslim organization in the United States is actually controlled by the MB [Muslim Brotherhood] or a derivative organization. Consequently, most of the Muslim-American groups of any prominence in America are now known to be, as a matter of fact, hostile to the United States and its Constitution.”

David Yerushalmi
founded of the Society of Americans for National Existence which first proposed legislation in 2007 to make adherence to Sharia “a felony punishable by 20 years in prison.

Yerushalmi is the general counsel for the Center for Security Policy and the co-author of CSP's “Shariah: The Threat to America” report.

He also serves as legal counsel for the anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America, led by Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller who writes an influential blog named Atlas Shrugs.

Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel for Stop the Madrassa: A Community Coalition, a New York City-based anti-Muslim right-wing grassroots organization that in 2007 attacked a New York City secular public school as a religious madrassa and Islamist front simply for teaching Arabic and the Arab culture.

Stop Islamization of America was recently listed as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Yerushalmi's most useful contribution to the Islamophobia network was writing the model “anti-Sharia” legislation introduced in more than a dozen states, which introduced Islamic religious law as a totalitarian threat infiltrating America.

Yerushalmi's obsession with Sharia law dates back to 2007 when his organization, the Society of Americans for National Existence, created the “Mapping Shari'a in America: Knowing the Enemy” campaign to determine what type of Sharia was practiced in every single mosque and advocated by Muslim American religious institutions.

In the same year, Yerushalmi began developing the template for the current anti-Sharia legislation movement American Laws for American Courts at the behest of the American Public Policy Alliance.

The American Public Policy Alliance is a right-wing group that claims “one of the greatest threats to American values and liberties today” comes from “foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines,” including “Islamic Shari'ah law.”

In 2011, Yerushalmi turned his attention to raising the threat of Sharia in American mosques to strengthen the legislative efforts of the Islamophobia network at the state level.

In June he released “Shari'a and Violence in American Mosques,” which speciously claims that more than 80 percent of US mosques feature texts that promote or support violence.

Daniel Pipes
founded the Middle East Forum in 1990 which publishes the Middle East Quarterly and sponsors Campus Watch, Islamist Watch, the Legal Project, and the Washington Project.

Anders Breivik cited Pipes and the Middle East Forum 18 times in his manifesto.

In 2002, Pipes launched Campus Watch to monitor professors and academics that deviate from Pipes' political ideologies.

In 2006, he established Islamist Watch, which “combats the ideas and institutions of lawful Islamism in the United States and throughout the West.

His Islamophobia took a further turn when in 2008 he recommended increased racial profiling of Muslims and Arabs to cope with this impending exaggerated threat.

Pipes also writes on his site,, where he echoes the Islamophobia network's alarmist rhetoric about the creeping Sharia threat posed by radical Islam.

Pipes is also willing to use his alarmist rhetoric when it serves the purpose of promoting Islamophobia. In 2008, for example, Pipes admitted to misleading the public by using the word “madrassa” referring to a New York City public school to “get attention.”

Because the “Stop the Madrassa Community Coalition” wanted to shut down a secular New York City public school that taught Arabic and Arab culture. He told The New York Times that using the word “madrassa,” which could mean a secular school or religious Islamic school in Arabic, was “a bit of stretch.”

Pipes was critical of the school based upon his odd and bigoted belief that “Arabic instruction is inevitably laden with Pan-Arabist and Islamist language.”

Pipes posted an article on his website contending that “Arabized students show decidedly greater support for the Islamist movement and greater mistrust of the West” to justify his unsavory actions.

Robert Spencer
, a prolific blogger, author, and commentator, is the co-founder of Stop Islamization of America and director of Jihad Watch.

Jihad Watch is a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Jihad Watch's primary purpose is to “track the attempts of radical Islam to subvert Western culture.”

Robert Spencer and his blog were cited 162 times in the nearly 1,500-page manifesto of Anders Breivik.

Spencer has written 10 books, including the New York Times bestseller The Truth About Muhammad. Daniel Pipes praised Stealth Jihad as “a pioneering survey of the 'stealth jihad' whose ambition and subtlety threaten the continuity of Western civilization.

His next book, Did Muhammad Exist?, is scheduled to be published by ISI Books in spring 2012.

Steven Emerson
, founded and runs the Investigative Project on Terrorism which is dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamist infiltration in America gleaned through investigative journalism.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism claims to be “one of the world's largest storehouses of archival data and intelligence on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups.”

Emerson frames Islam as an inherently violent and antagonistic religion. “The level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity within contemporary Islam, unfortunately, is something that we are not totally cognizant of, or that we don't want to accept,” says Emerson. Emerson was twice cited in Anders Breivik's manifesto.

The Validators

The right-wing media and anti-Muslim politicians often turn to a select group of individuals who claim inside knowledge about the realities of radical Islam to support the extreme views of Islamophobia misinformation experts such as Gaffney, Yerushalmi, Spencer, Pipes, and Emerson.

Most of these individuals are neither experts nor Muslim, but rather of Middle Eastern descent. Nonetheless, they help validate and authenticate manufactured myths about Muslims and Islam, contributing to the small echo chamber of men and women committed to promoting Islamophobia in the United States. Some of the prominent validators are:

Zuhdi Jasser
has emerged as the Muslim validator for Islamophobia propaganda.

Jasser, a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander and the president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy in Phoenix, has been an adviser on Islamic affairs to the US Embassy in the Netherlands.

He, however, not only lacks any policy or academic expertise but also promotes conspiratorial claims that America is infiltrated by radical Muslims.

“America is at war with theocratic Muslim despots who seek the imposition of sharia and don't believe in the equality of all before the law, blind to faith. They detest the association of religious freedom with liberty,” he says.

Jasser also dangerously and incorrectly labels mainstream Muslim American organizations as subversive, disloyal proponents of a radical-Islam takeover. He claims their “patriotism involves taking the American flag and adding a little crescent-and, of course, turning America into an Islamic state.”

Jasser also appears frequently in fear-mongering documentaries portraying Islam and Muslims as potential threats. He appears in Newt Gingrich's 2010 documentary “America At Risk: The War With No Name,” warning of the impending threat of radical Islam and enforcement of Sharia in America.

Along with Frank Gaffney and Daniel Pipes, Jasser sits on the advisory board for the anti-Muslim organization Clarion Fund, which releases inflammatory documentaries warning of radical Islam.

Walid Shoebat
boasts of himself as an expert on Muslim terrorism and is a self-described “former Islamic terrorist,” even though there is hardly any credible evidence to support his sensational tale of “Palestinian 'terrorist' turned Zionist,” as the The Jerusalem Post phrased it.

Shoebat was cited more than 15 times in Norway terrorist Anders Breivik's manifesto.

He is also one of the many prominent “experts” from the Islamophobia industry featured in the Clarion Fund's anti-Muslim documentary film “Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West.”

According to “Top Secret America,” a two-year investigation by The Washington Post exposing America's intelligence apparatus post-9/11, Shoebat is still being paid for his “expertise,” despite being labeled as one of the “self-described experts.

Although the FBI and others in the intelligence community consider his extremist views as inaccurate and harmful, and whose training of law enforcement officers and published views about Islam are considered “inaccurate and counterproductive” by government terrorism experts.

Walid Phares

A former militiaman and foreign affairs spokesman for the Christian Lebanese Front, which was responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacres of Muslims during the September 1982 Lebanese Civil War.

Walid Phares is currently a senior fellow and the director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C.

He also acts as an “expert” lecturer on “Islamist Jihadism” for the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies.

Nonie Darwish

An Egyptian raised in the Gaza Strip who immigrated to the United States in 1976 and in 2009 started the group Former Muslims United.

Darwish is also affiliated with the group Arabs for Israel, which describes itself as “an organization of Arabs and Muslims who respect and support the State of Israel and welcome a peaceful and diverse Middle East.

Darwish's famously predicted that Islam “will destroy itself because it's not a true religion.” She validates this view through her own books, Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror, and Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.

On April 8, 2011, she appeared alongside Frank Gaffney to testify on the sub-issue of the “culture of Jihad” at the New York Senate Standing Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs hearing titled “Reviewing our Preparedness: An Examination of New York's Public Protection Ten Years after September 11,” led by Sen. Greg Ball.

In her testimony, Darwish said “the education of Arab children is to make killing of certain groups of people not only good, it's holy.

Nonie Darwish and Walid Phares are both members of the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, which “posits radical Islam as a new global ideological menace on the order of the old communist threat from the Soviet Union.”


These organizations and individuals are sustained by funding from a group of key foundations, which have a deep understanding of how to influence US politics by promoting highly alarming threats to its national security.

These conservative and philanthropic foundations and wealthy donors have poured USD 42.6 million into the Islamophobia network in the US between 2001 and 2009.

· Donors Capital Fund
· Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
· Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
· Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
· Russell Berrie Foundation
· Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
· Fairbrook Foundation

Richard Mellon Scaife foundations comprises of the Sarah Scaife, the Carthage, and the Allegheny.

Between 2001 and 2009, Richard Mellon Scaife's foundations contributed $7,875,000 to Islamophobic groups. Among the recipients were the Center for Security Policy ($2,900,000), the Counterterrorism & Security Education and Research Foundation ($1,575,000), and the David Horowitz Freedom Center ($3,400,000).

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
provided $5,370,000 in funding to the Islamophobia network from 2001 to 2009. These funds went to the Middle East Forum ($305,000), the Center for Security Policy ($815,000), and the David Horowitz Freedom Center ($4,250,000).

Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker Foundation, Newton and Rochelle Becker Family Foundation
, and Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust contributed $1,136,000 to Islamophobic organizations between 2001 and 2009.

Russell Berrie Foundation
which funds a large number of mainstream Jewish and Israeli charities, provided anti-Islam groups with $3,109,016 between 2001 and 2009.

The contribution of Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund to islamophobic groups between 2001 to 2008 amounts to $2,818,229.

The William Rosenwald Family Fund also contributed to the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which is headed by Zuhdi Jasser.

The Fairbrook Foundation donated $1,498,450 to Islamophobic organizations, including ACT! For America, receiving $125,000; the Center for Security Policy ($66,700); the David Horowitz Freedom Center ($618,500); the Investigative Project on Terrorism, ($25,000); Jihad Watch ($253,250); and the Middle East Forum ($410,000).


Part 2...

The Grassroots Organizations And The Religious Right

If not for the grassroots organizations and validators, however, the efforts of the misinformation experts and their think tanks and all that funding would not have been so successful.

These “muscles” of Islamophobic network promote anti-Muslim hate on the society level.

These dedicated grassroots organizers have built lists and established local citizens groups they later rely on to turn out at rallies, make phone calls, testify on behalf of legislation, and donate money.

These grassroots organizations include religious-right groups such as the American Family Association and the Eagle Forum, and anti-Muslim organizations such as Stop Islamization of America, which increasingly lead massive public information campaigns with myths and misinformation about Islam and Muslims.

State-based, local, and Tea Party organizations, including the Tennessee Freedom Coalition, the North Orange County (California) Conservative Coalition, the Patriot Action Network, and the First Coast Tea Party in Florida are another examples of the muscles of Islamophobia network.

ACT! for America
, one of the largest grassroots group dedicated to targeting Muslims, was founded by Brigitte Gabriel in 2007 as a citizen action network to “inform, educate, and mobilize Americans regarding the multiple threats of radical Islam.

ACT! pursues a multipronged strategy for building its activist base. The organization hosts a series of meetings to bring interested activists together and train them with best practices.

But ACT!'s less visible but perhaps more important effort is its focus on local seminars. The group conducts roving training meetings, called “Citizen in Action training conferences,” for its grassroots members to learn the best way to communicate persuasive anti-Muslim messages, root out “suspicious activity in your community,” and “expose political correctness in your local media.”

Training meetings have occurred in Columbia, South Carolina; Bakersfield, Texas; Delray Beach, Florida; Denver, Colorado; and other locations since 2009.

ACT!'s most successful effort to date is the 2009 launch of its Stop Sharia Now project to increase public awareness of the manufactured threat of creeping Sharia into America. Since then, ACT! introduced David Yerushalmi's “anti-Sharia” bill to elected officials in several states.

Stop Islamization of America
was founded by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to fight radical Islam.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, however, the SOIA “promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy 'American' values.”

In the summer of 2010, SIOA led protests against the Park51 community center in New York City, which Geller and the industry deliberately mislabeled the “Ground Zero Mosque.”

In February 2011, SIOA released the film “The Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 911 Attacks,” which chronicles the protest movements against the “mosque” and features Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and radical conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart.

The Religious Right

The religious right's relationship with the Islamophobia network grows increasingly tighter.

Well established groups, among them the American Family Association and Eagle Forum, have broadened organizing efforts from traditional social values hot button issues such as gay marriage and abortion to include spreading conspiracy theories about Muslims.

Here we will introduce four prominent leaders on the religious right.

John Hagee
is the founder of Christians United for Israel, the CEO of Global Evangelism Television and the also founder of a mega-church called Cornerstone.

Hagee perpetuates several myths about Islam and American Muslims:

· “America is at war with radical Islam…. Jihad has come to America. If we lose the war to Islamic fascism, it will change the world as we know it.”

· “They are trained from the breast of their mother to hate us. Radical Islam is a doctrine of death. It is their desire, it is their hope, it is their ambition, it is their highest honor to die in a war against infidels. And you are 'infidels' and there is nothing you can do to accommodate them. That's what makes them so dangerous.”

· “Radical sects, which include about 200 million Islamics, believe they have a command from God to kill Christians and Jews.”

Pat Robertson
is the founder of Christian Broadcasting Network. He also established the American Center for Law and Justice which filed a lawsuit to block the construction of the Park51 community center in New York City.

Ralph Reed
founded the Faith and Freedom Coalition. In its recent annual conference, the Faith and Freedom Coalition featured CSP's Frank Gaffney, who gave a talk on “Defeating Terrorism and Jihad.”

At the conference, Gaffney suggested, “It is certainly possible we'd have a Muslim flag flying over the White House,” and hoped FFC would “take up the fight against shari'ah.”

Franklin Graham
is an American Christian evangelist and the President and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan's Purse, an international Christian relief organization.

Franklin Graham called Islam “a very evil and wicked religion” in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington.

Graham says the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Obama administration and is shaping US foreign policy.

On April 22, 2010, the Pentagon rescinded his invitation to speak at the National Day of Prayer event in response to his anti-Islam, fear-mongering comments.

American Family Association, Eagle Forum, and Tennessee Freedom Coalition joined forces with ACT! for American and Center for Security Policy to push anti-Muslim issues.

Across the country, many grassroots conservative organizations have championed causes pushed by the Islamophobia network.

These groups harness paranoia and hate spread in society by a multitude of other actors in the anti-Muslim sphere.

They couldn't exist, however, without a propaganda machine that provides constant ammunition for these captains of hate to spur networks of activists into action alongside willing media enablers.

The Right-Wing Media Enablers Of Anti-Islam Propaganda

The think tank misinformation experts and grassroots and religious-right organizations boast a symbiotic relationship with a loosely aligned, ideologically-akin group of blogs, magazines, radio stations, newspapers, and television news shows to spread their anti-Islam messages and myths.

These right-wing media outlets play a major role in pushing out a playlist of nonexistent Sharia threats, Islamic takeovers of the world, extremist Muslim infiltration into society and government, and more.

Chief among the media partners are the Fox News empire, the influential conservative magazine National Review and its website, a host of right-wing radio hosts, The Washington Times newspaper and website, and the Christian Broadcasting Network and website.

The Websites

A network of right-wing websites and blogs are the primary movers of anti-Muslim messages and myths.

The two most influential are:

1. David Horowitz Freedom Center websites and online magazines, including FrontPage Magazine, Jihad Watch, NewsReal Blog, and its various conferences
2. Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs blog

The David Horowitz Freedom Center, founded in 1988 by Horowitz, is a well-funded key player in amplifying the alleged threats of Muslim extremism. It was among anti-Muslim US players which Norway terrorist Anders Breivik cited in his manifesto.

Horowitz Center has two online magazines, FrontPage Magazine and Jihad Watch, directed by Robert Spencer through which the ideas of fellow anti-Muslim bigots such as Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer are amplified.

For instance, they used FrontPage Magazine to promote their Stop the Madrassa Community Coalition, which aimed to shut down a New York City public school simply because it taught Arabic language and culture.

Pamela Geller uses her blog, Atlas Shrugs, to promote a slew of conspiratorial claims. They include: President Obama is a Muslim; Arabic is not just a language but actually a spearhead for anti-Americanism; radical Islam has infiltrated our government, which is being run by Islamic supremacists; and Muslims are engaged in stealth cultural jihad by wearing their head scarves at Disneyland.

Anders Breivik cited Geller 12 times in his manifesto. Although Geller defended herself against any connection, she then condemned the Norwegian Labour Party summer youth camp, whose children had been attacked by Breivik.

Geller called the camp part of an anti-Israel “indoctrination training center.”

She further claimed that the children and young people who were killed by Breivik would have grown up to become “leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole.”

Hate Radio

Anti-Muslim websites cooperate with popular radio talk-show hosts who repeat and amplify the alarmist threats and conspiracy theories promoted by the blogs and their supporters.

The Rush Limbaugh Show, carried by more than 600 radio stations nationwide, is the most popular radio talk show in America and is broadcast to more than 15 million listeners a week.

Limbaugh joins Pamela Geller and others as a vociferous critic of the Park51 community center in New York City.

During the protests last summer, he charged that the community center was a “recruiting tool for foreign extremists.”

The Sean Hannity Show
as the nation's second most popular talk show has nearly 14 million listeners every week, and repeats the same talking points and conspiracy theories that can be heard on Limbaugh, Fox News, and other places.

The Savage Nation
. More than 350 radio stations broadcast his show to nearly 9 million weekly listeners. Savage is known for his angry diatribes against minorities, including Muslims.

On April 17, 2006, for example, he told listeners that Americans should “kill 100 million” Muslims. In October 2007 he suggested that American Muslims be deported.

The Glenn Beck Program
is broadcast by more than 400 stations and syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks.

Beck conjures fears equating Muslims with terrorists and brings religion into the mix. Last December, he speculated on his show about the number of American Muslims who might be terrorists, saying: “Let's say it's half a percent of the U.S. population. That's being generous. What's that number? What is the number of Islamic terrorists, 1 percent? I think it's closer to 10 percent.”

The Right-Wing Mainstream News Enablers of Islamophobia

Fox News
has one of the biggest and most influential megaphones in TV news, and uses this megaphone to amplify anti-Muslim alarmist threats and conspiracy theories on a regular basis.

Virtually all the leading Islamophobia players have made recurring appearances on popular Fox News programs, and repeat the same threats they warned about on radio shows and in blogs, newspapers, online magazines, and more.

Their staple threats include: Muslims imposing Sharia in America, Muslims establishing a global caliphate, Muslims engaging in homegrown jihad, and Muslims infiltrating President Obama's administration to promote dangerous Islamist agendas.

According to a poll conducted by Public Religion Research Institute, there is a strong correlation between holding erroneous views about Muslims and Islam and watching Fox News.

· Americans who most trust Fox News are more likely to believe that Muslims want to establish Sharia law, have not done enough to oppose extremism, and believe investigating Muslim extremism is a good idea.
· Nearly twice as many Republicans as Democrats believe that Muslims want to establish Sharia law in America, 31 percent to 15 percent. One third of white evangelical Christians believe this compared to 20 percent of white protestants and 22 percent of white Catholics.

The Christian Broadcasting Network

CBN, founded by Pat Robertson in 1961, has less national influence than Fox News, but great influence among conservative religious viewers.

On his “700 Club” TV show, Robertson compared Muslims to Nazis and called Islam “a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination.”

National Review

National Review is a biweekly magazine, founded in 1955, which publishes Andrew McCarthy, the author of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. It also publishes pieces by Daniel Pipes.

The Washington Times

Despite its small readership, The Washington Times wields a considerable influence in the national media because many of the views it raises and voices it carries are picked up by media outlets with powerful megaphones, like Fox News and talk-radio shows, helping spread anti-Muslim messages into the larger public sphere

The Washington Times, for example, helped promote a flawed study about US mosques written by David Yerushalmi. The newspaper's editorial page added to attacks against Park51 in August of 2010. And columnists from The Washington Times have contributed to the myth that President Obama is a Muslim.

The Clarion Fund

It was founded by Canadian-Israeli film producer and Rabbi Raphael Shore. The organization contributed to the production and dissemination of the inflammatory anti-Muslim movie, “Obsession: Radical Islam's War on the West.”

The film “reveals an 'insider's view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination.” The film was also cited in Breivik's manifesto.

The Clarion Fund also produced a documentary, “The Third Jihad,” narrated by Zudhi Jasser which was briefly used to train NYPD officers on counterterrorism.

The Political Players

The success of the Islamophobia network in tarring Islam and all Muslims with calculated misinformation would not be possible without the individuals and their organizations mentioned earlier.

Messages can spread far and wide because of the small but effective groups of funders and think tanks, right-wing grassroots and religious groups, and their right-wing media enablers on cable TV, radio, and the Internet.

But the ability of this tightly knit network to drench the public with misinformation is greatly enhanced by elected officials at the state and national level-politicians who push these myths as “facts” and then craft political fundraising campaigns and get out-the-vote strategies based on debunked information about Muslims and Islam.

For example Rep. Peter King (R-NY) held congressional hearings this spring on the alleged threat of Muslim extremism in the United States, parroting the debunked claim that 80 percent of mosques in America are radical.

Rep. King is a hero to many anti-Muslim bigots. In 2010 he received the annual American for National Security Patriot Award from Brigitte Gabriel's activist group, ACT! for America. Accepting the award, Rep. King expressed gratitude for the group's support, saying, “We are engaged in a brutal war with a brutal enemy, the enemy of Islamic terrorism.”

Across the country, anti-Muslim grassroots groups and individuals promote elected officials like King. This select group of officials, in turn, relies on a familiar handful of “experts”-and employs three basic strategies that harness the power of the political pulpit to shift public opinion:

· Elected officials and political leaders promote anti-Muslim messages through legislative actions, legislative oversight hearings, and electoral debates. Many of these efforts make the news.
· They launch fundraising appeals and campaign commercials based on the misconceptions and myths about Islam.
· They appear on like-minded media outlets and at conferences to repeat their talking points and argue their case.

Key players, men and women who are misdirecting the public debate about Islam in Congress and in State Houses across the country, are:

· Rep. Peter King (Republican-NY)
· Rep. Sue Myrick (Republican -NC)
· Rep. Paul Broun (Republican -GA)
· Rep. Allen West (Republican -FL)
· Rep. Renee Ellmers (Republican -NC)
· Rep. Michele Bachmann (Republican -MN)

Rep. Peter King

The chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the House of Representatives who has become known for casting suspicion on entire Muslim American communities.

In a 2007 interview with Politico he said, “There are too many mosques in this country. There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them.”

In March, he held congressional hearings titled “Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response.”

During the hearing he relied on Steven Emerson for many of his outlandish claims. Using Emerson as his source, Rep. King insisted that “80 to 85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists. I'll stand by that number of 85 percent. This is an enemy living amongst us.”

One of the most influential witnesses at Rep. King's hearings was Zuhdi Jasser, the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who was introduced earlier in the report.

The claim that 80 percent of mosques in American are radicalized was debunked during the King hearings. Anti-Muslim bigots, however, continued to pump life into it. For instance, David Yerushalmi released a study on June 17 that repeated the claim.

The study was published by Middle East Forum Quarterly, a journal on Middle Eastern affairs founded by Daniel Pipes and released through his think tank, the Middle East Forum.

Rep. Sue Myrick

In January 2007, Rep. Myrick claimed to be concerned that President George W. Bush and other officials were not taking the threat of “Islamofacism infiltration” seriously enough-and so she founded the Anti-Terrorism Caucus.

Today, she is a leading opponent of Muslims and Islam on the Hill, and now chairs the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence.

In April she held her own hearings on the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and their influence and ties with Muslim American organizations.

Rep. Myrick even launched a YouTube video series to warn the American public of Muslim extremists among us who “are now in positions in our government.

Rep. Paul Broun

A fourth-term representative from Georgia's 10th congressional district, he joined Rep. Myrick and other colleagues at a press conference in 2009 to amplify the claim of Muslim Mafia that interns from the Council on American-Islamic Relations were “running influence operations or planting spies in key national security-related” congressional offices.”

Rep. Allen West

In the spring of 2004, then US Army Lieutenant Colonel West retired after being given administrative punishment and fined $5,000 for performing a mock execution on an Iraqi detainee.

In his campaign for Congress, candidate West declared “Islam” the enemy and claimed it is not a religion but a “totalitarian theocratic political ideology.”

In fact, Rep. West has recommended that Congress focus on the “infiltration of the shari'ah practice into all of our operating systems in our country as well as across Western civilization.”

In a briefing called “Homegrown Jihad in the USA: Culminating of the Muslim Brotherhood's 50-year History of Infiltrating America” in July, West he promised to reveal a list containing thousands of names of individuals and organizations of Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers and members.

Despite his promises, Rep. West did not unveil the list at the briefing.

Rep. Renee Ellmers

In her electoral campaign, Ellmers made an issue of the “Ground Zero Mosque” in New York which was stridently anti-Muslim.

Rep. Michele Bachmann

Bachmann is the founder of the House Tea Party Caucus and one of the radical right's most consistent anti-Muslim voices.

Recently, she conflated Sharia with terrorism in responding to Osama bin Laden's death, writing “may this be the beginning of the end of Sharia-compliant terrorism.”

Her biased views of Muslims and Islam should not be surprising, considering the company she keeps. For instance, she gave the 2010 keynote address at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend, an annual, elite conference in Palm Beach, Florida. Other participants included Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller.

The influence of Islamophobic Members of Congress

Twenty-three states have considered bills banning Sharia, though only a few have passed. Raising fears about Sharia helps whip up public fear about national security issues. Anti-Sharia initiatives could be a way to mobilize anti-Muslim sentiment and increase conservative voter turnout.

There were similar efforts in 2004 with anti-same sex marriage ballot initiatives that aimed to increase voter turnout among the religious right.

In 2012, however, anti-gay ballot initiatives and rhetoric are less effective in driving the conservative base to open its wallets and get to the polls.

David Yerushalmi, the drafter of the model legislation, is transparent about his aims being public attitude not legal substance.

In an interview with The New York Times, he said, speaking of the anti-Sharia legislation, “If this thing passed in every state without any friction, it would have not served its purpose.... The purpose was heuristic-to get people asking this question, 'What is Shariah?'”

The point is to create a distracting, fear-based political atmosphere in which conservatives are brave patriots and strong on defense, while liberals are weak and politically correct. Using such a frame has helped conservatives win.


As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the Islamophobia network will be working overtime. The anniversary could be manipulated to ratchet up the nonexistent threat of Sharia and warn of apocalyptic dangers stemming from Muslims living in America.

Since 9/11, authorities have identified 161 Muslim American terrorist suspects and perpetrators, according to a 2011 study by University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill sociologist Charles Kurzman.

That's a lot, yet the study, “Muslim-American Terrorism Since 9/11: An Accounting,” concludes that “out of the thousands of acts of violence that occur in the United States each year, an efficient system of government prosecution and media coverage brings Muslim-American terrorism suspects to national attention, creating the impression-perhaps unintentionally-that Muslim-American terrorism is more prevalent than it really is.”

These cases enable the Islamophobia network to peddle their myths and misconceptions about Islam. Their rhetoric and actions are deeply unfortunate because they threaten to isolate and alienate a growing portion of the American population.

Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) till you follow their religion... (Al-Baqarah 2:120)

They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse.
(Quran 3:118)

...they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.
(Quran 8:30)

Verily, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend it; but in the end it will become an anguish for them. Then they will be overcome. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto Hell.
(Quran 8:36)

Many Americans uncomfortable with Muslims

By Eric Marrapodi - 9/7/2011

Washington (CNN) – Ten years after 9/11, Americans are wrestling with their opinions of Muslims, a new survey found, and
where Americans get their TV news is playing a role in those opinions.

Nearly half of Americans would be uncomfortable with a woman wearing a burqa, a mosque being built in their neighborhood or Muslim men praying at an airport. Forty-one percent would be uncomfortable if a teacher at the elementary school in their community were Muslim.

Forty-seven percent of survey respondents said the values of Islam are at odds with American values.

The Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution conducted the survey and issued a report, "What it Means to be American: Attitudes in an Increasingly Diverse America 10 Years after 9/11."

“Americans are wrestling with fear, but on the other hand they're also wrestling with acceptance,” said Robert P. Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute.

The results of the survey were announced Tuesday at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

One issue that seemed to divide respondents was sharia law.

Overall, 61% of respondents disagreed that Muslims want to establish sharia law in the U.S.

"2011 has been an enormously active year for this question," Jones said. "
Forty-nine bills have been introduced in 29 states to ban sharia law. We asked the same question back in February, and only 23% of Americans agreed Muslims want to establish sharia as the law of the land. That number has gone up to 30%, so still a minority, but the minority has grown."

The numbers were also showed a correlation with where people went for their news.

Americans who say they trust Fox News the most for their television news, 52% believe that Muslims are trying to establish sharia law in the United States. Sixty-eight percent of Fox viewers believed the values of Islam were at odds with American values.

The report says fewer than one-third of Americans who most trust broadcast news, CNN (20%) and public television (23%) believe that Muslims are trying to establish sharia.

"It's an emotional roller coaster," said Dr. Muqtedar Khan, a professor of political science at the University of Delaware. "I looked at this survey, and I'm really depressed."

Khan, a practicing Muslim, was particularly disturbed by the attitudes toward Muslims and what he called a misunderstanding of sharia law. "Sharia is just a prop, an attempt to say, 'we just don't know and like Muslims.' "

According to Jones, 2,450 Americans were reached by phone for the survey, and it had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.


Researcher: Finns now more critical of Islam


Finns hold largely negative views on Islam, according to a study on attitudes to various religions. Christianity enjoys the best standing among Finns, but the majority would be ready to welcome representatives of other religions into their families.

Based on their survey responses, Finns were best disposed towards Christianity, had mostly positive impressions of Buddhism and Hinduism, and
felt most critical towards Islam.

Only six percent of the survey respondents thought of Islam in positive terms, with the vast majority clearly
holding negative impressions—which, says researcher Kimmo Ketola from the Church Research Institute, is mostly down to the media.

“There are very few Muslim immigrants in Finland compared to many other European countries. The
media can convey an exceedingly harsh and negative picture of Islam,” Ketola says.

More acceptance

The researcher notes that Finns’ feelings about foreign religions have changed for the better over the past couple of decades, but
attitudes towards Islam have hardened in the 2000s.

However, Ketola says, prejudice is not so all-encompassing.

“When Finns were asked whether they’d be ready to accept people of other religions into their family or as representatives of their parties, in this regard Finns were among the least prejudiced of nations,” Ketola says.

Only four percent of Finnish residents adamantly opposed the idea of their relative marrying someone of a different religion.

Relationship with religion

Four of five Finns considered people with strong religious beliefs to be intolerant. Three out of five thought that religions bring more conflicts than peace.

Ketola says that Finns differentiate between piousness and religious extremism.

The majority of the Finnish population belongs to the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

The study shows that only eight percent of Finns consider themselves quite religious, but every fifth Finn believes in god without any doubts. Ten percent said they do not believe in god.

These findings emerged from an international study from the Finnish Social Science Data Archive, carried out by researchers from the Church Research Institute. They are based on the 1998 Religion: II survey of International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), which had over 50,000 respondents from 34 countries.


New York Times Caught Publishing CIA Propaganda On Norway Attacks
July 27, 2011

An American investigative journalist uncovers how the New York Times tried to link the Norway attack to a Muslim group that doesn’t exist and then how it quietly pulled the story later from its online edition, without offering an apology. Alexander Higgins, also uncovers how two other news outlets, one American and the other British, continued to demonize Muslims hours after a Christian extremist was arrested.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—In the first few hours after a Christian terrorist killed tens of Norwegians, the New York Times published a report claiming an unknown Muslim group, Ansar al-Jihad al-Aalami [Supporters of Global Jihad] has claimed responsibility for the attack.



Within a couple of hours of the attack, an online report warned that CIA and its broadsheets in the US media will exploit the attack to garner European support for the failing Afghan war.

This is exactly what many CIA-affiliated websites and ‘translation companies’ have been doing for the past decade, translating claims of responsibility after every terrorist attack anywhere in the world.

As expected, the New York Times published this claim quoting an unknown American analyst who said he saw the claim of responsibility on a website in Arabic and that he translated it into English.

The truth is that an ordinary discussion forum in Arabic, like millions of similar online forums, published what appears to be a celebratory note on the Norway attack arguing the attack was punishment for all the wrong done in Libya and Afghanistan, the two wars where Norway is a participant by default because of its NATO membership.

But nowhere in the Arabic was text there a claim of responsibility. Also, the person who posted the text in Arabic used a fake name.

So a claim by an unknown group that no one heard of, using a fake profile on a discussion forum? Any real journalist would ignore it.

But not the
New York Times, which is famous for publishing absolute lies drafted by the CIA. The paper spent the whole of 2002 publishing sophisticated ‘news reports’ about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction complete with expert illustrations of alleged Iraqi weapons. One of NYT’s top reporter, Judith Miller, was discredited because she ran CIA-planted stories under her byline and went to jail in another case of harassment of a US diplomat and his wife who exposed US government lies on Iraq.


The Sun knew it was al-Qaeda before anyone else!


The credibility of the mainstream US media and its links to US government and the CIA is an open secret. The
Pakistani military has accused the New York Times of running a ‘slander campaign’ against Pakistan, its military and its spy agency at CIA’s behest.

Even the Norwegian media was cautious when the NYT came up with this claim of responsibility. Norway TV did its own translation of the text and discovered there was no explicit claim of responsibility for the attack.
The investigative work that reveals NYT’s professional dishonesty was done by Alexander Higgins, and published on his blog under the telling title, Corporate Media Runs False CIA Story Stating Muslim Group Claimed Responsibility For Oslo .

Here we reproduce images from Mr. Higgins blog along with their original captions that tell the full story.

[CLICK HERE to see how
Fox News misled American viewers. Some parts of the US media were desperate to implicate Muslims. Pro-war lobbies want any excuse to continue a policy of deception and wars.]




Mr. Higgins makes several interesting observations in his report.
The first is that
Norway is a Muslim-friendly country that has not followed the American policy of harassing its Muslim community. It is also a supporter of Palestinian rights and an independent Palestinian state. The Norwegian government has also formally apologized for a couple of local newspapers that reprinted cartoons offensive to Muslims. So unlike the propaganda in American media, Muslims have little reason to attack Norway.

The second important observation is that while the American media continues to emphasize that the
Christian extremist is anti-Islam, more important is the fact that he is pro-Israel and a big admirer of anti-Islam writers and bloggers in the US.

This last point is very critical because it confirms our longstanding argument that the
United States government and in particular its main intelligence service the CIA are promoting anti-Muslim feelings inside the US and worldwide to continue their interventions in other countries in the name of war on terror.

anti-Pakistan propaganda worldwide is also the work of CIA and other elements of the US government. They have been using the same twisted methods of demonizing Pakistan that have come to the surface now after the Norway attacks.

Jihadica, one of many websites suspected of links to CIA that have sprung up to scare the Americans of Islam and secure their support for endless wars in the Middle East. Photo courtesy of Alexander Higgins’ blog




  • Corporate Media Runs False Story Stating Muslim Group Claimed Responsibility For Oslo Bombings.pdf
    649.6 KB · Views: 56
  • New York Times Caught Publishing Propaganda On Norway Attack.pdf
    286.3 KB · Views: 26
  • New York Times Caught Publishing Propaganda On Norway Attacks.pdf
    618.5 KB · Views: 30
  • Pakistan Will Resist American Attempt To Link It To Norway Carnage.pdf
    180 KB · Views: 31

Norway mourns victims of anti-Islam "Crusader"

By Victoria Klesty and Gwladys Fouche - Jul 24, 2011

Norway mourned on Sunday 93 people killed in a shooting spree and car bombing by a Norwegian who saw his attacks as "atrocious, but necessary" to defeat liberal immigration policies and the spread of Islam.

In his first comment via a lawyer since his arrest, Anders Behring Breivik, 32, said he wanted to explain himself at a court hearing on Monday about extending his custody.

In a rambling manifesto before the attacks, Breivik said he was part of a crusade to fight a tide of Islam.

"He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary," Geir Lippestad said.

The lawyer said Breivik had admitted to Friday's shootings at a Labour party youth camp and the bombing that killed seven people in Oslo's government district a few hours earlier.

However, "he feels that what he has done does not deserve punishment," Lippestad told NRK public television.

"What he has said is that he wants a change in society and in his understanding, in his head, there must be a revolution."

Oslo's acting police chief Sveinung Sponheim confirmed to reporters that Breivik would be able to speak to the court. It was not clear whether the hearing would be closed or in public.

"He has admitted to the facts of both the bombing and the shooting, although he's not admitting criminal guilt," Sponheim said, adding that Breivik had said he acted alone.

Police were checking this because some witness statements from the island spoke of more than one gunman, Sponheim said.


The violence, Norway's worst since World War Two, has profoundly shocked the usually peaceful nation of 4.8 million.

King Harald and Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg were among mourners at a service in Oslo cathedral, where the premier spoke emotionally about the victims, some of whom he knew.

"This represents a national tragedy," he declared.

Tearful people placed flowers and candles outside the cathedral. Soldiers with guns and wearing bullet-proof vests blocked streets leading to the government district.

Police said Breivik surrendered when they arrived on the small island of Utoeya in a lake northwest of Oslo after he had shot dead at least 85 people, mostly young people attending a summer camp of the youth wing of Norway's ruling Labour Party.

About 650 people were on the island when Breivik, wearing a police uniform, opened fire. Police said it took them an hour from when they were first alerted to stop the massacre, the worst by a single gunman in modern times.

An inadequate boat and a decision to await a special armed unit from Oslo, 45 km (28 miles) away, delayed the response.

"When so many people and equipment were put into it, the boat started to take on water, so that the motor stopped," said Erik Berga, police operations chief in Buskerud County.

A person wounded in the shooting died in hospital, raising the death toll to 93, Norway's NRK television said. Police say some people remain missing. Ninety-seven people were wounded.

Otto Loevik had to decide who to pick up on his boat and who to leave behind as he came under fire trying to rescue fleeing teenagers. "He remembers the faces of the youths he left behind," Loevik's wife, Wenche, told Reuters.

"He told me: 'I had to chose who to pick up on the boat and who to leave behind. Who do you choose?'," she said. Her husband, who declined to be interviewed, rescued some 40 to 50 terrified youths.

Norwegian police said a British police officer was providing technical expertise in the investigation but that they had not requested any separate inquiries in foreign countries.


Breivik posted a 1,500-page manifesto, written in English, on Friday, describing his violent philosophy and how he planned his onslaught and made explosives.

The killings would draw attention to the manifesto entitled "2083-A European Declaration of Independence," Breivik wrote.

"Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike," he added.

The manifesto posted by Breivik, a self-styled founder member of a modern Knights Templar organization, hints at a wider conspiracy of self-appointed crusaders and shows a mind influenced by the fantasy imagery of online gaming.

"The order is to serve as an armed Indigenous Rights Organization and as a Crusader Movement (anti-Jihad movement)," he writes in the document, chunks of which are cut and pasted from other far-right, anti-Islam documents on the Internet.

Breivik says he is not against immigrants who integrate and reserves a lot of his fury for a liberal European political establishment he views as promoting Europe's destruction.

He hints at a wider conspiracy in the document, saying that the Knights Templar, a medieval order of crusading warrior monks, had been reconstituted in London in 2002.

Breivik attacks the "Islamic colonisation and Islamisation of Western Europe" and the "rise of cultural Marxism/multi-culturalism."

A video posted on YouTube called "Knights Templar 2083" showed pictures of Breivik, including one of him in a scuba diving outfit pointing an automatic weapon.

Parliament, in recess until October, is to be recalled for a memorial service. Party leaders will discuss how the attacks would affect campaigning for local elections in September.

"We will have an election, we will have a political debate," said Stoltenberg, premier and Labour Party leader.

"But I believe everyone understands that we have to discuss the form of the debate ... to avoid a conflict between the political debate and the need to show dignity and compassion."

Erna Solberg, head of the main opposition Conservative Party, said: "We have to agree the rules of the game."


Norway has long been open to immigration, which has been criticised by the populist Progress Party, to which Breivik once belonged. Labour, whose youth camp he attacked, backs multi-culturalism to accommodate different ethnic communities.

"Norway will keep going. But there will be a Norway before and after the dramatic attacks on Friday," Stoltenberg said.

"But I am quite sure that you will also recognize Norway afterwards -- it will be an open Norway, a democratic Norway and a Norway where we take care of each other."

The attacks have prompted soul-searching in Norway.

At Oslo cathedral, Britt Aanes, a priest aged 42 said the fact that Breivik was Norwegian had affected people deeply.

"In one way, I think it was good that it was not a Muslim terrorist group behind this," she said. It pointed up the complexity of immigration and inter-religious issues for Norwegians, "a small and privileged people," she said.

"We must open our eyes and not simply think that we can keep all this wealth to ourselves."

Some analysts questioned whether Norway, focused on al Qaeda-type militancy, had overlooked domestic threats.

"While the main terrorist threat to democratic societies around the world still comes from Islamist extremists, the horrific events in Norway are a reminder that white far-right extremism is also a major and possibly growing threat," said James Brandon, research head at London's Quilliam think-tank.

Home-grown anti-government figures have struck elsewhere, notably in the United States, where Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a truck bomb in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Grief was still raw for survivors and relatives clustered at a hotel in Sundvollen near Utoeya island. They huddled together, many with bloodshot eyes, at terrace tables.


If there is a Muslim even in question of a crime then he/she (and anyone they know) becomes a "suspected terrorist", but their people won't even after they commit terrorist acts! For them only the "Islamist" (a word they've invented) are extremists and there are only "Muslim terrorist" groups; while all their real terrorists are disgruntled lone gun shooters!

Even in this news article they are trying to justify his actions by trying tell you that the Muslims are the problem (the reason he had to do this). They're even going as far as to insinuate (by using the words "anti-Islam" and "crusader") that he is a hero...just as the earlier crusaders were heroes for these people and just as Bush said that they will lead a crusade...

The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of "Terrorism"

Jul 23, 2011

For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates. The morning statement issued by President Obama -- "It's a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring" and "we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks" -- appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group.

But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a
right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. Despite that, The New York Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals (h/t sysprog):

Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were
mimicking Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks.

"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations,
it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.

Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to
detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.

Then there's this extraordinarily revealing passage from the
NYT -- first noticed by Richard Silverstein -- explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:

Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible.

In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know --
by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism. As Silverstein put it:

How's that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world?

What it says is what we've seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't). As Maz Hussain -- whose lengthy Twitter commentary on this event yesterday was superb and well worth reading -- put it:


That Terrorism means nothing more than violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes has been proven repeatedly. When an airplane was flown into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, it was immediately proclaimed to be Terrorism, until it was revealed that the attacker was a white, non-Muslim, American anti-tax advocate with a series of domestic political grievances. The U.S. and its allies can, by definition, never commit Terrorism even when it is beyond question that the purpose of their violence is to terrorize civilian populations into submission. Conversely, Muslims who attack purely military targets -- even if the target is an invading army in their own countries -- are, by definition, Terrorists. That is why, as NYU's Remi Brulin has extensively documented, Terrorism is the most meaningless, and therefore the most manipulated, word in the English language. Yesterday provided yet another sterling example.

One last question: if,
as preliminary evidence suggests, it turns out that Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?


The original version of the NYT article was even worse in this regard. As several people noted, here is what the article originally said (papers that carry NYT articles still have the original version):

Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out terrorism as the cause of Friday's assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking al-Qaida's signature brutality and multiple attacks.

"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from al-Qaida," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.

Thus: if it turns out that the perpetrators weren't Muslim (but rather "someone with more political motivations" -- whatever that means: it presumably rests on the
inane notion that Islamic radicals are motivated by religion, not political grievances), then it means that Terrorism, by definition, would be "ruled out" (one might think that the more politically-motivated an act of violence is, the more deserving it is of the Terrorism label, but this just proves that the defining feature of the word Terrorism is Muslim violence). The final version of the NYT article inserted the word "Islamic" before "terrorism" ("even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause"), but -- as demonstrated above -- still preserved the necessary inference that only Muslims can be Terrorists. Meanwhile, in the world of reality, of 294 Terrorist attacks attempted or executed on European soil in 2009 as counted by the EU, a grand total of one -- 1 out of 294 -- was perpetrated by "Islamists."


This article expertly traces and sets forth exactly how the "Muslims-did-it" myth was manufactured and then disseminated yesterday to the worldwide media, which predictably repeated it with little skepticism. What makes the article so valuable is that it names names: it points to the incestuous, self-regarding network of self-proclaimed U.S. Terrorism and foreign policy "experts" -- what the article accurately describes as "almost always white men and very often with military or government backgrounds," in this instance driven by "a case of an elite fanboy wanting to be the first to pass on leaked gadget specs" -- who so often shape these media stories and are uncritically presented as experts, even though they're drowning in bias, nationalism, ignorance, and shallow credentialism.


The Norway massacre and the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism

by Alex Kane on July 24, 2011

Details on the culprit behind
yesterday's massacre in Norway, which saw car bombings in Oslo and a mass shooting attack on the island of Utoya that caused the deaths of at least 91 people, have begun to emerge. While it is still too early for a complete portrait of the killer, Anders Behring Breivik, there are enough details to begin to piece together what's behind the attack.

Although initial
media reports, spurred on by the tweets of former State Department adviser on violent extremism Will McCants, linked the attacks to Islamist extremists, it was in fact an anti-Muslim zealot who committed the murders.

An examination of Breivik's views, and his support for far-right European political movements, makes it clear that only by interrogating
the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism can one understand the political beliefs behind the terrorist attack.

Breivik is apparently an
avid fan of U.S.-based anti-Muslim activists such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, and has repeatedly professed his ardent support for Israel. Breivik's political ideology is illuminated by looking at comments he posted to the right-wing site, which author and journalist Doug Sanders put up.

Here's a
sampling of some of Breivik's comments:

And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called "moderate Muslims".

There is moderate Nazis, too, that does not support fumigation of rooms and Jews. But they're still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservatives Nazis strike (if it ever happens). If we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the fumigation of rooms and Jews?

Now it unfortunately already cut himself with Marxists who have already infiltrated-culture, media and educational organizations. These individuals will be tolerated and will even work asprofessors and lecturers at colleges / universities and are thus able to spread their propaganda.
For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies...(page 2-3)

What is globalization and modernity to do with mass Muslim immigration?

And you may not have heard and Japan and South Korea? These are successful and modern regimes even if they rejected multiculturalism in the 70's. Are Japanese and South Koreans goblins?

Can you name ONE country where multiculturalism is successful where Islam is involved? The only historical example is the society without a welfare state with only non-Muslim minorities (U.S.)...(page 7)

We have selected the Vienna School of Thought as the ideological basis. This implies opposition to multiculturalism and Islamization (on cultural grounds). All ideological arguments based on anti-racism. This has proven to be very successful which explains why the modern cultural conservative movement / parties that use the Vienna School of Thought is so successful: the Progress Party,Geert Wilders, document and many others...(page 13)

I consider the future consolidation of the cultural conservative forces on all seven fronts as the most important in Norway and in all Western European countries. It is essential that we work to ensure that all these 7 fronts using the Vienna school of thought, or at least parts of the grunlag for 20-70 year-struggle that lies in front of us.

The book is called, by the way 2083 and is in English, 1100 pages).
To sums up the Vienna school of thought:
-Cultural Conservatism (anti-multiculturalism)
-Against Islamization
-Anti-authoritarian (resistance to all authoritarian ideologies of hate)
-Pro-Israel/forsvarer of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries
- Defender of the cultural aspects of Christianity
- To reveal the Eurabia project and the Frankfurt School (ny-marxisme/kulturmarxisme/multikulturalisme)
- Is not an economic policy and can collect everything from socialists to capitalists...(page 20)

Daniel Pipes: Leftism and Islam. Muslims, the warriors Marxists Have Been praying for.

link to

The following summarizes the agenda of many kulturmarxister with Islam, it explains also why those on death and life protecting them. It explains so well why we, the cultural conservatives,are against Islamization and the implementation of these agendas... (page 27)

We must therefore make sure to influence other cultural conservatives to come to our anti-rasistiske/pro-homser/pro-Israel line. When they reach this line, one can take it to the next level...(page 41)

Breivik's right-wing
pro-Israel line, combined with his antipathy to Muslims, is just one example of the European far-right's ideology, exemplified by groups such as the English Defense League (EDL). The EDL, a group Breivik praises, along with the anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders, share with Breivik an admiration for Israel.

Anti-Muslim activists and right-wing Zionists share a political narrative that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a "clash of civilizations," one in which Judeo-Christian culture is under attack by Islam. Israel, in this narrative, is the West's bulwark against the threat that Islam is posing to Europe and the United States. The
nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism was clearly on display during last summer's "Ground Zero mosque" hysteria, which culminated in a rally where Geller and Wilders addressed a crowd that included members of the EDL waving Israeli flags.

This comment by Breivik is one example of the twisted way in which Islamophobia and a militant pro-Israel ideology fit together:

Cultural conservatives disagree when they believe the conflict is based on Islamic imperialism, that Islam is a political ideology and not a race.
Cultural conservatives believe Israel has a right to protect themselves against the Jihad.

Kulturmarxistene refuses to recognize the fact that Islam's political doctrine is relevant and essential. They can never admit to or support this because they believe that this is primarily about a race war - that Israel hates Arabs (breed).

As long as you can not agree on the fundamental perceptions of reality are too naive to expect that one to come to any conclusion. Before one at all can begin to discuss this conflict must first agree on the fundamental truths of Islam's political doctrine.

Most people here have great insight in key Muslim concepts that al-taqiiya (political deceit), naskh (Quranic abrogation) and Jihad. The problem is that kulturmarxister refuses to recognize these concepts. They can not recognize these key Muslim concepts. For if they do so erodes the primary argument that Israel is a "racist state" and that this is a race war (Israelis vs. Arabs) and not defense against Jihad (Kafr vs. Ummah)
Breivik's admiration for the likes of Daniel Pipes is also telling, and should serve as a warning that, while it would be extremely unfair and wrong to link Pipes in any way to the massacre in Norway, Breivik's views are not so far off from some establishment neoconservative voices in the U.S. For instance, both Pipes and Breivik share a concern with Muslim demographics in Europe. In 1990, Pipes wrote in the National Review that "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

was appointed by the Bush administration to the U.S. Institute of Peace, and sits on the same board than none other than the Obama administration's point man on the Middle East, Dennis Ross.

Pipes' and Breivik's concern about Muslim and Arab demographics also recall the remarks of Harvard Fellow Martin Kramer, who infamously told the Herzliya Conference in Israel last year that the West should "stop providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status...Israel's present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim, undermine the Hamas regime, but they also break Gaza's runaway population growth and there is some evidence that they have."
Adding to the Israel/Palestine angle here is the fact that the day before the attack on the island of Utoya, a Palestine solidarity event was held there.

Why Breivik, and his accomplices if he had any, would attack young Norwegians remains unclear. But it probably had something to do with Breivik's belief that European governments, and the Norwegian government, were run by "Marxists" allied with Islamist extremists who were bent on destroying Europe through "multiculturalism."

Of course, support for Israel and its current right-wing policies do not automatically translate into support for extremist right-wing violence. But
Palestinians, and the larger Arab and Muslim world, know far too well the consequences of Islamophobia and far right-wing Zionism. Now, it seems that Norwegians do too.

While much remains to be learned about the attacks in Norway,
it has exposed the dangerous nexus of Islamophobia, neoconservatism and right-wing Zionism, and what could happen when the wrong person subscribes to those toxic beliefs.



  • The Norway massacre, Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism.pdf
    100.6 KB · Views: 43


Medias' Lies about Muslims and Norway (ppt)

Fox News Lies

Fox news falsely blaming the Norway Terrorists’ attack on Muslims without any proof.

Go down to the end of the article for the video:


Colbert Report: Norwegian Muslish Gunman's Islam-Esque Atrocity

Just because Norway's confessed murderer is a blond, blue-eyed, Norwegian-born, anti-Muslim crusader doesn't mean he's not a swarthy, ululating madman.


The Fingerprints of US right-wing Christian Terrorism

Thom Hartmann

Scholastic Terrorism: Strategies used to villianize Islam and the Muslims



Powerpoint - Scholastic Terrorism Strategies

download -



  • Media & Lies.pdf
    134.9 KB · Views: 25


Junior Member
Liers around us

Well in this silly world their are million of lairs like me too around every one. it is us who decide weather one is telling us the truth or lie to us. :tti_sister:


Junior Member
we are living in a world, where money is more important to have then killing thousands of people.. .. .. .. and the media, today, have to have the news, which people like, and our people are here to see the daily the new things, media is translating each and everything with different meanings.. some time a great news, we cant see on media , but a small news with no importance wud become the top headline of Media news. and muslims countries are the main focusing areas in the world to have news from.. we can see live example from many muslim countires....
now, what should we muslims have to do, to have strong faith, and strengthend our faith, focus on what, Allah, his prophet (pbuh), said, to follow that.. inshAllah, and inshALLAH IF every person have the faith, strong faith, the world would be fine...