Top Menu

How the Government Smeared Tarek Mehanna

(updated below)

Tarek Mehanna, a twenty-nine year old American Muslim pharmacist, was sentenced a few days ago to 17.5 years of incarceration.  Much has been said in the mainstream media about this young man, but few people have taken the time to go through Mehanna’s statements over the years to understand his world view and ideology.

Fortunately, Mehanna has a digital footprint that goes back several years.  Long before he was arrested, Tarek Mehanna operated under the user name Abu Sabaya, posting on internet discussion forums and his own blog.  These postings are of critical (but overlooked) importance, because the government’s case rests on them.  After all, Mehanna was accused of “conspiring to support Al Qaeda” by “taking to the Internet to try to spread the terror group’s message.”

I have browsed Tarek Mehanna’s blog and internet postings, and my conclusion is that the government has smeared this young man in what can only be called defamation of the worst sort.  The three central lies levied against him include:

1) the claim that he justified (and called for) the killing of American civilians;

2) the claim that he plotted to “shoot[] people at a shopping mall.”

3) and the claim that he expressed support for Al-Qaeda, wanted to join Al-Qaeda, and/or was an Al-Qaeda operative.

Going through Mehanna’s statements over the years, which are preserved by the world wide web, I am highly skeptical of the government’s claims against him.  Not only did I not find any postings justifying or calling for the killing of American civilians, I found the exact opposite.  In 2008, long before he was arrested, Mehanna translated and published a fatwa (religious verdict) that categorically forbids the targeting and killing of civilians.

The ruling starts off by noting that Islam forbids punishing a person for the sins of another, and argues that the Prophet Muhammad forbade the targeting and killing of women and children.  It also specifically rejects the argument, raised by none other than Al-Qaeda and her supporters, that it is permitted to kill enemy civilians in retaliation when the enemy (i.e. America and Israel) kills Muslim civilians.  Mehanna’s translation then states that such “extremist” beliefs can neither be rationalized from a religious standpoint nor a military one.  It concludes by claiming that there is a unanimous consensus (ijma) among religious scholars with regard to this prohibition, which all Muslims must consider religiously binding.

Here are key parts of the translation, which Mehanna translated in full on his blog:

A Discussion Regarding the Targeting of Women and Children

“1 – The principles of the Shar’i texts indicate that a man is not to be taken to account for the sins of others, as in the Saying of Allah: {“…and none shall carry the burdens of another…”} [al-An’am; 16]

2 – The Shar’i texts have stringently forbidden targeting the children and women of the polytheists with any type of killing or fighting, no matter what the reasons and causes for doing so, as in the hadith reported by al-Bukhari and others, and narrated by Ibn ‘Umar, that a killed woman was found by the Prophet in one of the battles, and the Prophet forbade the killing of women and children.

And Handhalah said: “We went out for battle with the Messenger of Allah, and we came by a killed woman, and the people had gathered around her. They made way for the Prophet, who said: “This woman was not fighting amongst those who were fighting.” He then said to a man: “Go to Khalid bin al-Walid, and say to him that the Messenger of Allah orders you to say: ‘Do not kill a child, and do not kill the weak.’”“

So, his saying: ‘orders you’ confirms the clearcut prohibition of killing children, and his saying: ‘This woman was not fighting amongst those who were fighting’ is the understanding of opposites, meaning: if she had been fighting, and was amongst those who were fighting, it would be allowed to fight and kill her.

3 – Despite the numerous wars and battles that were fought by the Prophet, his Companions, the Tabi’in who followed them in good from the first three generations – whose virtue was borne witness to by the Prophet – and despite the many wrongdoings and oppressions that the Muslims of these blessed early generations faced, it is not known that either the Prophet, his Companions, or the Tabi’in ever intentionally killed the children or women of the polytheists!

4 – Children are not to be killed, because according to the Shari’ah, they are pure souls…

5 – The noble verse that was used as proof: {“…So, whoever transgresses against you, transgress in a similar manner against him…”} [al-Baqarah; 194] does not contain evidence for what it was being used for [by extremists]

…[I]t is not allowed to steal from someone simply because they stole from you, and it is not allowed to insult the father of someone simply because he insulted yours. And it is not allowed to respond to the one who violates your honor with false accusations and insults by doing the same to him, etc. If you were to do this, you would have exceeded your bounds, and would be considered a wrongdoer, and would have punished someone with the sins of someone else.

Likewise, it is not allowed to respond to one who has killed your child by killing his child. Rather, you are to kill the killer, because if you were to kill his child, you would have killed an innocent life based on the mistake of a completely different person, and this has nothing to do with the legislated form of revenge and retaliation. Rather, it is nothing but excessiveness and oppression! With this, you would have exceeded the limits in revenge and retaliation, and would end up punishing with more than you were punished with!

And there is not a single scholar who permits the killing of the children of a killer in retaliation for his own oppression and killing of the children of others. Rather, there is consensus that only the killer is to be killed.

6 – Regarding this statement that has been put forth [i.e. the extremist ruling permitting the killing of civilians] despite its strangeness and weakness: it is not from proper wisdom or the politics of the Shari’ah to act upon it in our times, or to circulate it. And this is for two reasons:

First: even if it had the Shar’i factors in place that would justify it, if this door were to be opened, the enemy – with its massive military equipment that the Muslims lack – is the one more capable of aggression, and is more capable of bringing down harm upon the Muslims, their children, and their women!

Second: the enemy possesses massive media influence that the Muslims lack…How would [the Muslim] reputation and image be in front of the public [if they killed women and children]? How would the people look at them and their religion? …

In the comments section, someone (let’s call him e-jihadi #1) protested the ruling by reproducing a hadith (Prophetic tradition) in which Muhammad supposedly permitted the killing of civilians.  Tarek Mehanna himself rebutted this argument, saying:

These ahadith are in regards to accidental deaths (i.e. collateral damage). This is quite different from deliberately targeting them, which is expressly forbidden in Islam.

When e-jihadi #2 expressed support for killing civilians, Mehanna not only rebuffed him but expressed frustration:

My friend, no matter how you try to justify it, the Prophet expressed in crystal clear terms that it is strictly forbidden to target women and children in war. This is not Abu Basir’s “unrestricted application,” and is not his opinion. This is a divinely revealed rule that originated from Allah and was relayed by His Messenger, and nobody’s opinion – Mujahid or no Mujahid – overrides that.

I don’t know why that is so difficult to understand…

Then, e-jihadi #1 came back to give another piece of evidence in support of his view, which Mehanna then negated.  Interestingly enough, e-jihadi #1 found himself properly refuted, and conceded the debate.

E-jihadi #3 stepped up to the plate by claiming that the translated fatwa “is just one opinion”, to which Mehanna concluded by saying: “Yes, it also happens to be the opinion of the Prophet.”

Reading Tarek Mehanna’s blog and internet posts, it becomes apparent that he considers these e-jihadis to be misguided hotheads.  Although in several posts he criticizes American foreign policy, he also spends considerable amount of ink refuting the hotheads he feels have gone “too far”.

The major sticking point between Tarek Mehanna and the hotheads is the principle of distinction, i.e. the targeting and killing of civilians.  Mehanna posts multiple translations from religious figures considered highly regarded in the “jihadi community” in order to bolster his viewpoint and also to undermine the hotheads.

For example, Mehanna translated an Arabic tract by a senior religious figure, who says the hotheads are “the ones whom I fear for the Jihad and the Mujahidin” because they are a “group that harms the Jihad and the Mujahidin, and severely damages the Jihadi manhaj [methodology].”  Their failing is that they support “every [religious] opinion–even if it is wrong–that leads to extremism, harshness, and the spilling of blood–even if that blood was forbidden [i.e. innocent civilians]!”  They end up “distort[ing] the manhaj [methodology] of Jihad, as well as the image that the Jihad must remain upon”, and “give others a very bad and inaccurate picture of Jihad and the Mujahidin!”

Mehanna’s frustration with the hotheads becomes apparent in another translation that impugns the “mistaken attitude held by some of the youth who carry zeal and enthusiasm for the affairs of Jihad…[and] out of emotion, fanaticism, and ignorance” they reject the clear statement of Islam forbidding those actions committed by “the people of the frontlines” (i.e. Al-Qaeda).

*  *  *  *  *

Based on his steadfast rejection of targeting civilians, it seems improbable to me that Tarek Mehanna ever considered shooting American civilians in a shopping mall.  Another translation Mehanna provided on his website gives one more reason to be doubtful of this dubious government claim; the fatwa reads:

If you are given a visa to any country in the world, it is not allowed for you to partake in any action that breaks its laws. This is not allowed, unless this would contradict something from Islam, such as the prayer, fasting, etc. It is not allowed for you to cheat them [non-Muslims] or take from their wealth. It is not allowed, for example, for you to take one of their daughters, and marry her without the permission of her father. It is not allowed for you to rip up a telephone bill. It is not allowed for you to harm the state, and it is not allowed for you to place a magnet on the electric meter of your home [to steal electricity]… As for coming to kill him [non-Muslim] while he is secure and under a pact of security [visa], this is not allowed.

What’s interesting is that the prosecution not only failed to convict Tarek Mehanna for planning a shopping mall shooting spree, but never even charged him with this.  This is something that Mehanna himself noted, saying in an interview:

You asked me to summarize my court experience, and I wish to conclude it by mentioning that it has been nearly a year since I was last arrested, two years since I was first arrested. I have read through countless court documents handed over by the government during the year that I’ve been sitting here in prison. And to this day—after all this time—I have yet to come across even a single shred of evidence whatsoever that even remotely relates to the supposed “shopping mall” plot that I was initially accused of (but until now have not even been charged with). Nothing at all—there’s simply no trace of it, as if the accusation itself never existed in the first place. I think that in and of itself summarizes my court experience.

Why did the government not pursue this charge?  Certainly, this would be Mehanna’s most egregious misdeed if it were true.  Yet, the accusation simply disappeared from existence.

One can only conclude that this was a baseless accusation, one that was so weak that there was not even enough evidence to charge him with it, let alone convict him of it.  Yet, very early on it was thrown into the mix of accusations against Tarek Mehanna in order to smear him, as well as to instill fear into a post-Columbine American public.

Shouldn’t the government be held to account for such dishonest tactics?

*  *  *  *  *

As for the third smear, i.e. his connection to Al-Qaeda, I can find no evidence from Tarek Mehanna’s digital record for this claim.  He has dozens upon dozens of blog posts and internet comments, but not a single time do I see an endorsement, either direct or indirect, of Al-Qaeda.  In fact, he does not seem to mention the group at all.  If he was lobbying on their behalf, I think Al-Qaeda should ask for its money back.

Bloomberg Business Weekly ran the blaring headline “Terror Defendant Mehanna Backed Bin Laden Online, Jury Told.”  Yet, I have not been able to locate any such statement by Mehanna.  If “Mehanna backed Bin Laden online”, then surely we should be able to retrieve such a statement, since, as you may well know, the internet never forgets.

Yes, it’s true that Tarek Mehanna supports jihad, but his own blog clarifies what he thinks the word means: “The Purpose of Jihad…is to repel the aggression of the aggressors against Islam and the Muslims”; “the goal of the Jihad in this religion is not simply to control people or bring them under the submission of others, nor is the goal death and destruction, nor is it oppression under the guise of justice”, but rather it is “the spreading of justice and mercy…”

During his trial, Tarek Mehanna rejected the claim that he supports Al-Qaeda or that he condones their terrorist tactics of targeting civilians.  The evidence, i.e. his internet postings from years prior, is consistent with this.  Mehanna does support the mujahideen (holy warriors), but by this, he does not seem to be referring to Al-Qaeda or terrorists.  Instead, he is using this epithet for (what he, and I would argue many people, consider to be) legitimate “freedom fighters” who are fighting American soldiers in the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan.  But, the government has purposefully made “anyone who resists the U.S. occupation” to be synonymous with “Al-Qaeda” and “terrorist”.

The translations (above) are mostly from a religious cleric named Abu Basir al-Tartusi, who resides in London.  Abu Basir has been a vocal critic of Western military occupations of Muslim lands, but he strongly condemned acts of terrorism like the 7/7 bombing in London.  Mehanna’s views seem in line with Abu Basir’s, not Bin Laden’s.

*  *  *  *  *

Something else that Tarek Mahanna’s internet postings reveal is a certain fascination with Muslim prisoners.  He had numerous posts about prominent figures in Islamic history who were unjustly jailed, such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ahmed Ibn Hanbal.  Closer to home, Mehanna had written passionately and repeatedly about Aafia Siddiqui, a Muslim woman who is being held in an American prison.  Tarek Mehanna had organized a letter writing campaign to boost her spirits in prison, but now it seems that he himself has joined her behind bars.  In doing so, the United States government has not only fulfilled his desire to become a martyr, but proved that he was right: the U.S. does jail Muslims unjustly.

It is true that Tarek Mehanna’s views, as expressed on the internet over the years, reveal that he was a religious extremist in many ways (and certainly a hothead in his own right).  But, there does not seem to be any evidence from his internet record (which is on what basis he stands convicted) to prove that he supported terrorism.  Instead, he rejected terrorism.  His other views may well be offensive, but they are not illegal to hold, and are Constitutionally protected.

One of Mehanna’s most disturbing beliefs is his adherence to a “clash of civilizations” worldview, or at least its Muslim equivalent.  In this paradigm, the Muslim community will forever be under attack by the disbelievers, specifically the West.  Thus, there will exist a permanent state of animosity between the two sides.  In the end, it is the United States that has reinforced this belief in Tarek Mehanna (and countless other Muslims) more than any radical preacher could ever hope to do.

*  *  *  *  *

I strongly encourage readers to check out Glenn Greenwald’s piece on the topic, which includes a transcript of Tarek Mehanna’s sentencing statement.

Also read Carol Rose’s excellent article, It’s Official. There is a Muslim Exception to the First Amendment.

Update I:

A reader quipped:

So you folks know everything about Tarek Mehanna? Everything. How? “Because we read his blog.Yeah!!”

I did not claim to know everything about Tarek Mehanna. I simply went through his blog posts and internet comments, which are on what basis he was convicted for, i.e. online advocacy of terrorism.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.

, , , , , ,

  • Michael Elwood

    @Durendal

    “Have Al Qaida ever said they target civilians? I don’t think they say this.The targets are always Crusaders or Zionists or apostates or polytheists a whole host of things but never civilians.This unwanted but unavoidable killing of civilians has also been part and parcel of Islamic warfare for 1400 years and Muhammad also did this according to the hadith. The hadith of the night raid, where Muhammad and the Muslims attacked a non-Muslim camp at night and the Muslims asked what about the woman and children present? We might kill them because it’s dark and he replied they are of them.That clearly suggests it is permissible but only under certain conditions “collateral damage”.”

    We’ve been over this before, Durendal. Concerning civilians, Islamic military ethics are unambiguous. The Quran says:

    2:190 Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors

    4:94 O you who believe, if you strike in the cause of GOD, you shall be absolutely sure. Do not say to one who offers you peace, “You are not a believer,” seeking the spoils of this world. For GOD possesses infinite spoils. Remember that you used to be like them, and GOD blessed you. Therefore, you shall be absolutely sure (before you strike). GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.

    6:151 Say, “Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you: You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty – we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill – GOD has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand.”

    17:33 You shall not kill any person – for GOD has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped.

    For a more detailed treatment of Islamic military ethics, see the following articles by Prof. Aisha Musa:

    http://www.examiner.com/religion-politics-in-miami/jihad-islam

    http://www.examiner.com/religion-politics-in-miami/what-the-quran-really-says-about-fighting-christians-and-jews

    “Also the woman and children would be taken as slaves which today would be considered a war crime.”

    We’ve been over this before too:

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/the-feminist-mosaic-the-naked-blogger-the-burka-and-the-boys-in-hijab/comment-page-3/#comment-114456

    “It’s kind of questionable what is a worse violation of human rights, being enslaved or being killed so we shouldn’t pretend Muhammad didn’t engage in collective punishment , war crimes and human rights violations.”

    From whence this concern for “collective punishment,” “war crimes,” and “human rights violations”? Many of your fellow atheist are dismissive of that stuff. Take this quote from Sam Harris, for example:

    “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.”

    Durendal writes: “Also the one man doesn’t carry the burden of the sin of another the Qu’ran verse probably deals with the hereafter.”

    The Quran 53:38 says: “None can carry the burdens of another.”

    This and similar verses refer to both here and the hereafter.

  • truth

    Boko haram in Nigeria re politically motivated.

  • Pingback: Who Will Convict the US Government for “Material Support of Terrorism”? | Spencer Watch()

  • IbnAbuTalib

    Durendal: .BTW it also has to be noted that what is there about not killing woman and children appears to have a clear monetary motivation they are part of the “war booty”. and not a humanitarian or moral motivation.

    Not a very convincing argument since if the motivation was monetary rather than humanitarian, we would not find a plethora of instructions associating the freeing of slaves (which includes both male and female slaves) with virtue. From a neoclassical economic perspective and assuming an economy based on slavery, it is highly irrational to free slaves….yet that is what Islam requires! Thus, it is unlikely that women and children of the enemy were to be spared simply because they were economically beneficial to the Muslims.

    The rest of your post reeks of excrement.

  • TheBig-T

    @Durendal
    a cople of mistakes
    1. After the battle of Uhud, Quryish and the Muslims signed a peace treaty in which the conditions were that the Muslims where free to spread their religion with out interference, and that the Muslims postpone the Pilgrimage to another year.
    But guess who broke that treaty by attacking unarmed men, The Quryish where the ones who broke the treaty and killed a camp full of Muslim scholars.
    thus igniting war again.

    2. Where is the Hadith you claim that permits muslims to kill non-muslims in camps and no Jihadwatch is not considered a reliable source, also the hadiths are secondary in law making, the first being the Quran which has no such command in it.

    3.The battle of Mecca was Bloodless, I.e no blood on either side was shed and Mohammed allowed the polytheists to live in the city in peace (So much for your Interpritation of Mohammed as a blood thirsty monster)

    so in conclusion: use reliable non-biased sources if you want information about islam (not these Neo-nazi websites like Barenakedislam or atlassruggs etc.)
    oh and a side note (since you and your buddies love to bring this subject up)
    the Jewish tribe of Quraiza were the ones who rebelled against Mohammed during the battle of the Trench, and as punishment only the men were executed (as is the crime for treason in any country those days) and the women, children and elderly were spared and allowed to live in the city

  • rookie

    Dan15, yousay:
    “rookie, it must be hurtful for you to know that American Jews were at the forefront to call for NATO intervention in Bosnia in the early 1990s.”

    I think this idea originates from labs created by Bobby-boy and his lovely mermaid Geller.
    It is the idea that muslims hate jews – which is a pure lie!
    —————————-
    —————————-
    You also say:
    “What did the Wahabis do? They attempted to eradicate Bosnian heritage in ways not even the Serbs could accomplish. What good did your Saudi Wahabi friends were in whitewashing the interior of the Husrev-Beg Mosque in Sarajevo?

    Firstly, what does this nonsense has to do with Mehanna story?

    Secondly, sure you have never been to Sarajevo, have you?

    So, stop writing things learned from various hate blogs and internet forums and display ignorance here.

    Your claim that “wahabi” are my firends is another blunder, especially if do not now the historical use of it.

    You claim: “”What did the Wahabis do? They attempted to eradicate Bosnian heritage in ways not even the Serbs could accomplish”.

    Using Wikipedia and then displaying intelectual muscles here is not very clever in the age of global telecommunications.

    Gazi Husrev-Begova Dzamija, as we call it, or Gazi Husrev-beg Mosque was under constant attack from serbian forces during the longest siege of a capital city in the history of modern warfare.

    You say “serbs could not accomplish” what “Wahabi” acomplished”?

    You are right.
    Serbs did great job of destroying everything (in addition to civilians) it seemed “turkish” to them: mosques, bridges, libraries, government buildings…

    See for yourself (I guess you like Wikipedia):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo

    During the siege there were so many casualties in the city, that the dead had to be buried Koshevo football stadium – without religious ceremony – due to the constant sniping.

    So, where was NATO to save muslims for four years?

    As for your “wahabi claim”, well, I know what you guys out there read.

    Yout should know that the “Gazi Husrev-begova Dzamija”, or Gazi Husrev-beg mosque has been administered by “Rijaset Islamske Zajednice Bosne i Hercegovine” – or “Riyasa of Islamic Community of Bosnia and Herzegovina” for the past one century!!!

    This “Islamic Community” has oposed views to the people you call here “wahabi”.
    It is a fact!
    Do you think the adminitration of the Mosque would allow “wahabi”, as you call them, to make changes they dislike?

    This is their home page, so contact them and tell them your opinion:

    http://www.rijaset.ba/

  • http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

    Abdul-Rahman,

    Totally agree with your point about CIA and Al-Qaeda. How come if Al-Qaeda is a Muslim dominance movement then the highest majority or nearly all of its casualties are the Muslims and those too in the areas that Al-Qaeda is supposed to originate from – the Pashtun areas – areas of the people that are predominantly fighting the US invasion in Afghanistan and Pakistan? It’s like saying Ku Klux Klan wants white dominance of the world but all the people that it kills are the white supremacists.

  • Abdul-Rahman

    @infidel

    Your a lying hatemonger. You mean the “al-Qaeda” that the CIA admits creating to use against the Soviets and give the Russians “their Vietnam”?! http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

    As for Nigeria, if you had bothered to read any real source you’d know that Nigeria does not have much inter-communal strife and where there is some amount of it (mostly in the Jos region that is on the borderline of the north and south) there are just as many armed Christian fighters in Christian militias then there are “Boko Haram” or any Muslim group http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/02/nigeria-the-imam-and-pastor-by-journeyman-pictures/

    “Boko Haram” in Nigeria has gotten in fights with the official Nigerian government’s military which if you even bothered to go to wikipedia you could see includes generals who are Muslims and have Muslim names. So “Boko Haram” has also shot at Nigerian Muslim soldiers as well. The Nigerian government is also a corrupt government in bed with Western imperialist oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell which is why armed groups like MEND fight to protect their regions oil reserves from these imperialist Western companies like again Royal Dutch Shell.

    Hamas and Hezbollah are both resistance organizations fighting the Zionist Khazar occupying criminals.

    It is certainly you who are a crusader imperialist monster.

    @dan to respond to some more of your claims “dan”

    You seem to “brag” that the US armed and trained “al-Qaeda” to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s lol! If you bothered to red you’d also realize the CIA admits they armed the rebels first and got them to provoke a Russian invasion as the US gov wanted the Russians to get “their Vietnam”. http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

    As for Iraq, Saddam was an Amerikkkan puppet he was even a CIA trained assassin in the 1960s to try to kill the then leftist Iraqi leader Gen. Abd al-Karim Qassim who was getting to cozy with the Soviets for the US liking in the “Cold War” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm

    Then of course Saddam was buddy-buddy with Reagan and Rumsfeld in the 1980s, as the US used him against Revolutionary, Ayatullah Khomeini, led Iran that had heroically overthrown the US and Zionist puppet dictatorship of the Shah in the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution. The Amerikkkan regime and CIA had of course not only backed the Shah’s dictatorship and monarchy; the CIA and the British helped put the Shah in power in 1953; when the CIA launched “Operation Ajax” to overthrow the popularly elected Iranian nationalist leader Mohammed Mossadeq who dared to open up ties with his Soviet neighbors and most crucially of all work to nationalist Iran’s own sovereign oil resources out of the hands of imperialist Western corporations (like BP “British Petroleum”). Saddam and his buddy Rumsfeld in their famous meeting where Reagan and Rumsfeld sold Saddam arms and gave him military intelligence against Revolutionary, anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist Iran: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2003/03/11/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

    As for Kuwait, it is historically part of Iraq http://www.cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/old_uploads/OttomanIraq.jpg

    The British colonialist set up the puppet Al-Sabah monarchy in “Kuwait” to weaken the larger Arab nation of Iraq by cutting Iraq off from direct water access to the Persian Gulf (as “Kuwait” sits right off on the Persian Gulf coast, unlike Iraq which is obstructed and relies on what is called the Shatt al-Arab waterway). http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/1874

    “Throughout its history, this family (the Al-Sabah monarchy of Kuwait) has maintained a continuous connection with one imperial overlord or another. The first Western power the al Sabah family associated with was Britain, followed later by the USA.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Iraq

    http://archive.suite101.com/article.cfm/middle_east/28789

    The US imperialists also even tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait, as the US wanted to get rid of Saddam’s power after they had built Saddam up in the 1980s to be their puppet and tool against Revolutionary, Ayatullah Khomeini, led Islamic Republic of Iran. This was accomplished by the US ambassador April Glaspie giving Saddam the wink-wink green light in meetings telling him the US regime allegedly had “no opinion on your Arab-Arab affairs” (at that time Saddam was locked in an argument with the Kuwaiti monarchy over very real charges that Kuwait was both slant drilling and stealing Iraqi oil and also Kuwait’s monarchy was violating their OPEC quota and flooding the oil market driving down the price of oil; Kuwait could afford to do this as they had tons of investments in the West much like say Saudi does as well and other Gulf monarchies like the Emirates, etc. Whereas Iraq under Saddam was calling for Arab self-sufficiency and pan-Arab nationalist unity).

    http://www.rense.com/general69/41.htm April Glaspie on the first Bush’s orders tricks Saddam in 1990

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Glaspie_hussein.jpg

  • marco

    So when are Pam Geller or Spencer and their ilk going to be put on trial for the many nutjobs they’ve inspired to hate muslims which also probably inspired the wave of attacks on Mosques all across America, after that fake ‘Ground Zero mosque’ incident???

    Oh yeah, right never. Its not like the very views they hold inspired a certain Norwegian nutjob to go on a killing spree…

  • Talal

    Halal Pork Says:
    April 15th, 2012 at 5:37 am
    Sir David:Sadly,you are like a DONKEY which carries a Big Head but very little BRAIN.Your I.Q seems very high where :I: stands for IGNORANCE.You also seem to be Jihadi Taliban supporter.You have to watch your steps in case you spend rest of your old senile age like your Jihadi friend.We will miss your sarcasm which is the lowest form of Wit,if you have any!!!”

    donkeys are actually quite smart. if you read about them before trying to abuse someone by calling them a donkey you would have known that.

    but i don’t think you are bright enough for that.

  • Abdul-Rahman

    @dan15

    You are giving the usual NATO imperialist propaganda, I also diverge from the views of many individuals posting here as well as even though I am Muslim (and defend all Muslims including the Muslims of the Balkans who did face massacres and war crimes some Serb groups did commit) I realize the NATO propaganda campaign that was conducted against the Serbs and how NATO destroyed Yugoslavia after specifically demonizing the Serbs (and if one researchs they will see NATO’s aerial bombardment didn’t just kill Serbs they killed everyone in huge amounts including people they claimed to be coming to “protect” like Muslims, Croatians, etc) as Reagan specifically sought to target Yugoslavia for its largely successful market Socialist economy (which Reagan and the Cold “warriors” could not stand for).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qi50Mun4RA Boris Malagurski (noted as the “Serbian Michael Moore”) his documentary “The Weight of Chains”

    There were Serb militias that did commit massacres and rapes, but the West exaggerated to demonize the Serbs and give the US led NATO imperialist war machine an excuse to destroy the nation of Yugoslavia and effectively “Balkanize” the region and put in US military bases. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/aug/18/balkans3 “Serb killings ‘exaggerated’ by West” Reminds me of the lies imperialist NATO said against the Libyan government led by Muammar Gaddafi http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/06/481209.html “Amnesty: no evidence of mass rape, mercenaries or air strikes by Libyan regime”

    Gaddafi’s government (that had a system of direct democracy of local People’s Councils, whereas today an entirely undemocratic “NTC” rebel council in theory “controls” the country but doesn’t have control of many militias including those around Tripoli itself) had helped build Libya into the Jewel of Africa and the Switzerland of Africa that was working to industrialize and free Africa. That is specifically Gaddafi led Green Libya sought to free Africa from the chains of the IMF and World Bank mafia imperialists and their poisonous so-called “loans” to enslave the African people in our modern days. NATO backed puppet “rebels” (who the French were arming even before the rebellion started in 2011 in Libya) were used as proxies by the NATO imperialist “coalition” (of the US, UK, and France in particular) to reduce the once Jewel of Africa Green Libya into a destroyed nation (i.e. its’ infrastructure was thoroughly destroyed just like what happened in Iraq) with untold numbers of armed militias running around causing havoc in Libya today i.e. some reports say there are still between 250 to 300 different armed militias running around just the Libyan city of Misrata itself even today. http://english.irib.ir/news/political/item/81625-at-least-30000-civilians-killed-in-nato-attacks-on-libya

    The Libyan city of Sirte (from again what under Gaddafi was the Green Libyan nation that was recognized as the Switzerland and Jewel of Africa under Gaddafi’s leadership; offering its citizens standards of living in health care, education and economic fairness rivaling many “industrialized” Western European nations http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24152) after NATO “liberation” http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2011/10/22/li-sirte-destroyed-rtr2t0x6.jpg

    As for why the US and NATO got “involved” in the Balkans; it was straight up imperialism. One can see this as the Serbs are traditionally tied to and backed to a certain extend by the Russians (the main rival of the imperialist US and imperialist NATO’s expansion specifically in eastern Europe near the borders of Russia). The Russians were not as strong as they are now (under Putin’s anti-NATO leadership) in the early and mid 1990s as the collapse of the Soviet Union was still relatively fresh, but they still backed the Serbs then and traditionally of course. With this in mind the US (the driving force in the NATO imperialist “coalition”) wanted a military base in the Balkans (to threaten Russia with) and they got it and it is called the US military base “Camp Bondsteel” in Kosovo. The imperialist US military Empire of bases http://www.miprox.de/USA_speziell/US-Military-Bases-Worldwide.jpg

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/oil-a29.shtml

    This US military base Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo is also noted for being a “little Gitmo” where reports suggest the US illegally sends people to be tortured by the CIA and their associated goons at this specific imperialist US foreign military base (in the again strategically important region of the Balkans, NATO threatening Russia, etc). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel#Controversies

  • khushboo

    Hey Infidel, two can play that game! Go play nice with your homicidal friends like Brevik and other white supremacists, Kony and the LRA, MEK, and all your other neo Nazi buddies you psychopath! Don’t be a f*ckin hypocrite and spare us your sanctimonious bullshit!

  • Danios

    @ Infidel Task Force:

    So you folks know everything about Tarek Mehanna? Everything. How? “Because we read his blog.Yeah!!”

    I did not claim to know everything about Tarek Mehanna. I simply went through his blog posts and internet comments, which are on what basis he was convicted for, i.e. online advocacy of terrorism.

  • Danios

    Agreed, Isa.

  • http://blah.com dan15

    rookie, it must be hurtful for you to know that American Jews were at the forefront to call for NATO intervention in Bosnia in the early 1990s.

    What did the Wahabis do? They attempted to eradicate Bosnian heritage in ways not even the Serbs could accomplish. What good did your Saudi Wahabi friends were in whitewashing the interior of the Husrev-Beg Mosque in Sarajevo?

  • Isa

    I don’t agree with fundamentalist interpretations of religion, but strict religious beliefs shouldn’t be on trial. There are fanatical Jewish, Christian, and other American citizens as well. But they are not on trial.

  • Danios

    Danios, didn’t he go to Yemen to join a ‘jihadi group’ to fight but couldnt get recruited so he came back to the States and translated material instead?

    This is the government’s claim. Tarek Mehanna and his lawyers have claimed that the trip to Yemen was to tour Islamic schools as he had planned to study Arabic and Islamic law.

    My article is about three other claims by the government, which seem to be false. In light of this, one naturally doubts the other claims by the government, such as the “went to join a jihadi group in Yemen” claim.

    Additionally, there are reasons to question this claim. First, it seems to be a hypothetical. He “wanted to join” a jihadi group. Generally, we only get punished for things we have actually done. Second, Tarek did obviously study Arabic and Islamic law, which is apparent from his blog. But, he never went on to train for jihad, which not only reinforces Tarek’s defense but also reinforces my own point, which is that we get tried for things we have actually done, not wanted to do.

    Furthermore, the question arises: even if Tarek Mehanna wanted to join a jihadi group, what kind of group is this? Based on his writings, he did not seem to agree with terrorism as a tactic and differentiated between Al-Qaeda type terrorists and what he saw as ‘legitimate’ mujahideen groups.

    Even his actual conviction seems to be for wanting to fight U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Certainly that’s illegal since he is a U.S. citizen, but it’s not terrorism.

    In any case, he was not heading to Iraq at all, but Saudi Arabia for a pharmacy job.

    So, you see, it is a complex issue, but the fact is, the government seems to have smeared him either way.

    Lastly, I should reiterate that I do not agree with Tarek Mehanna’s worldview. But, justice and the rule of law must be applied with an even hand, and we must not abandon our principles for people whose views differ from our own.

  • rookie

    “This is not terrorism, and it’s not extremism. It’s what the arrows on that seal above your head represent: defense of the homeland.”

    Well said Mehanna, well said.

  • rookie

    Dan15 says:

    I like how his narrative conveniently ignored certain facts:

    – When Serbs were killing Muslims, NATO stepped in

    >>> Dan15, it is a pure LIE that NATO stepped in because serbs were massacring us in Bosnia!!!

    I mean, you can tell this lie to americans (bunch of them), they believe this LIE.

    It is interesting that NATO “stepped in” several YEARS of genociding civilians!

    Why did it take YEARS, not Months?

    No, at the beginning bosnian muslim defended themselves with stones, gas bottles and hunting rifles.
    You can see bunch of video material on youtoube.

    When resistance of bosnian muslims gained momentus and wer almost in the vicinity of Banja Luka, NATO “stepped in”.

  • Abu AHmed

    Maybe we as Muslims and other people of good will need to organize ourselves in same manner as did the parents and supporter of Trayvon shot and killed by Zimmerman. Maybe we need to get to the streets and in front of that courthouse in hundreds and maybe even thousands and demand justice. Everything is possible when you have well organized mass of people who are demanding what is right!
    I am very much interested to stand with my brother and sisters in protests!
    Salam

  • Sir David : Man on a phone with a french spell check

    Oh nô halal dork does not love me any more.

  • Jinn

    Danios, didn’t he go to Yemen to join a ‘jihadi group’ to fight but couldnt get recruited so he came back to the States and translated material instead?

  • http://www.youtube.com/dawahfilms DawahFilms

    Mr. Pork,

    Wow, youre still around? I was thinking by this time you would have Anders Breiviked yourself, walked into a herd of sheep slaughtering hundreds, so as to stop the impending use of them for food by the Islamic hoards, and then being convicted of animal abuse.

  • http://gmail Halal Pork

    Sir David:Sadly,you are like a DONKEY which carries a Big Head but very little BRAIN.Your I.Q seems very high where :I: stands for IGNORANCE.You also seem to be Jihadi Taliban supporter.You have to watch your steps in case you spend rest of your old senile age like your Jihadi friend.We will miss your sarcasm which is the lowest form of Wit,if you have any!!!

  • Sir David : Man on a phone with a french spell check

    Strange that hé was convicted of recruiting for Al Q
    I thought that was the army’s job

Powered by Loon Watchers