CBN News has covered the ongoing controversy surrounding the Islamic Saudi Academy in northern Virginia extensively. As I reported back in June 2006, this K thru 12 school–which is owned and operated by the Saudi government and sits just 14 miles from the White House–has used textbooks that vilify Jews and Christians and promote a radical Wahhabi strain of Islam. The Academy is basically an American-based extension of Saudi Arabia’s educational system. No wonder, then, that The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a panel formed by Congress, last year recommended that the school be closed. That didn’t happen. In fact, Fairfax County (VA) renewed the Academy’s lease just last month. They can’t be too happy, then, about this new report:
A federal investigation released Wednesday reveals that some Islamic textbooks are teaching kids it’s okay to kill adulterers and converts from Islam.
The books have been used by the Islamic Saudi Academy, which teaches 900 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax. The school receives much of its funding from the Saudi government.
Passages in their textbooks state that “the Jews conspired against Islam and its people” and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed “polytheists.”
The academy has come under scrutiny from critics who allege that it is teaching an intolerant brand of Islam.
Last year, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a panel formed by Congress, recommended the school be shut down out of concern it promoted violence.
“We feel more confident that the potential problems we flagged before really are there,” said the commission’s spokeswoman, Judith Ingram, after the content of textbooks were reviewed
In the review, the panel recommended that the school make all of its textbooks available to the State Department so changes can be made before the next school year.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians: 6:12.)
What a decade it has been for assassinations, liquidations, exterminations – for State terrorism led by the Land of the Free. Summary executions include Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. On 5th February 2003, General Colin Powell stating that he headed a deadly terrorist network within Iraq – just six weeks before the US headed a deadly terrorist network, in an illegal invasion, which entirely destroyed Iraq.
On 7th June 2006, at Hibhib, near Baquba, al-Zarqawi was killed by two five hundred pound bombs, dropped by USAF F-16 jets, killing five others including his wife and child. Legality, trying in law those accused of wrong doing, is, seemingly, so yesterday.
President Saddam Hussein and some of his sovereign government were subject to a kangaroo Court, laughable had it not shamed and disgraced the word “legal” at every level.Then he was lynched.
Osama bin Laden’s alleged death, with still unaccounted for others, was another blot on legality and humanity, with his body seemingly summarily disposed of as shark food. Why observe religious and legal niceties, when they may, in turn, preserve forensic, legal evidence?
Hilary Clinton and her partners in crime, were, of course, shown “watching” this gruesome slaying, by illegal immigrants, who had entered ally Pakistan, without bothering to request permission for air space or passge. It then had to be admitted there was in fact no transmission from a video, previously said to be screened from one of the assassins helmets. Hollywood meets Capitol Hill?
Subsequently this tasteless, part fictional scenario with Ms Clinton’s hand over her mouth, feigning personal “shock and awe” was, the gullible were informed, due to “an allergy.”
Her repellent performance on CBS( i ) shortly after Quaddafi’s death, assassination, execution, street dragging – early days for the exact sequence of another bloody illegality, was Madam Clinton for real. She near punched the air, roared with laughter and announced:
“We came, we saw, he died.”
“Did this have anything to do with your visit?” (On 18th October) She was asked
“Nnn …” Then: “I’m sure it did.” Grin.
During her brief trip she had stated: “We hope he [Col Gaddafi] can be captured or killed soon …”
Arguably, not since Madeleine Albright, when US Ambassador to the United Nations (“… avowed to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…”) stated that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were: “A hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it”(60 Minutes,12th May 1996) has such abhorrent, shaming filth been spewed over the air waves.
Throughout the post 9/11 era, Al Qaeda and the “threat of Islamic terrorism” have played a central role in defining Washington’s diplomatic agenda, shaping its rhetoric at World summits as well as establishing the contours of US military doctrine.
The pre-emptive “defensive war” doctrine against Al Qaeda and its alleged “State Sponsors” constitutes the foundation of America’s post 9/11 National Security Strategy (NSS), first formulated in early 2002.
In the wake of 9/11, the Al Qaeda Legend became part of the mainstay of US foreign policy. Contained in the 2002 NSS is the notion of a “global jihadist network of terrorists” and “state sponsors of terrorism”. The response of the US administration is to launch “a war of global reach”, a “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT):
“The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
…Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (…)
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.” (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
The underlying objective of the 2002 NSS was to present “pre-emptive military action” –meaning war as an act of “self-defense” against two categories of enemies, “Rogue States” and “Islamic terrorists”, both of which were said to possess “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. The “Rogue States” are also defined as “State sponsors” of terrorism.
The 2002 NSS as well as subsequent National Security documents identified a list of “Axis of Evil” countries which had been singled out for preemptive military intervention under the “Global War on Terrorism”. These included Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Libya, North Korea.
Both Israel and the United States have hinted they might consider taking military action as a last resort to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
By Reuters
Israel would not be able to halt Iran’s reported quest for atomic weapons with a single strike, a senior Israeli defense official said on Sunday.
Israel and the West suspect Iran is trying to use its nuclear program to develop atomic weapons, a charge denied by Tehran which says it wants to generate electricity.
Both Israel and the United States have hinted they might consider taking military action as a last resort to stop Iran getting the bomb.
The defense official, who in line with Israeli army guidelines declined to be identified, mentioned Iran during a review of the security situation in the Middle East in a briefing to foreign reporters.
“We’re not talking about Iraq or Syria where one strike would derail a program,” the official said, referring to Israel’s 1981 air strike that destroyed Iraq’s atomic reactor and the bombing in 2007 of a Syrian site which the U.N. atomic agency said was very likely a nuclear reactor.
“With Iran it’s a different project. There is no one silver bullet you can hit and that’s over,” the official said.
Israeli leaders have urged the United States and other Western countries to present Tehran with a credible military threat to back up economic sanctions already in place.
The official said the United States stood a better chance of forcing Iran to change its mind over its nuclear program than Israel.
“With all respect to Israel … the greatest fear of the (Iranian) regime is the USA. There is no question about it.”
Some analysts say the likelihood of an imminent Israeli war with Iran has ebbed, thanks to the perceived success of political pressure on Tehran.
Recent Israeli estimates do not show Iran developing nuclear weapons before 2015.
Israel is widely believed to have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, and Iran has accused it of hypocrisy over the issue.
Israeli leaders urge Western nations to present Iran with a credible military threat
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
Majid Jamali Fashi, alleged Mossad assassin who has now been sentenced to death for the assassination of an Iranian nuclear physicist (Photo: Press TV)
Haaretz published an astonishing article today in which an unnamed Israeli defense official revealed that Israeli leaders have been making a concerted effort to build up a “credible military threat to back up economic sanctions already in place” against Iran for their nuclear program.
Small naval unit left to train Iraqis in Umm al-Qasr pulls out, completing eight-year mission that left 179 troops dead.
British ground forces finished withdrawing from Iraq in 2009, leaving a small naval contingent [GALLO/GETTY]
The last of Britain’s military forces have withdrawn from Iraq after more than eight years of fighting militants and training security forces.
Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the British Royal Navy on Sunday handed over its mission of patrolling waters off the southern Iraqi port city of Umm Qasr on the Persian Gulf.
“The Iraqi Navy are ready, so now is the time for the UK to dress back and let them complete the mission they were created for,” said Brigadier Max Marriner, the British commander in Iraq.
Al-Dabbagh said 80 British sailors had been helping to train Iraq’s Navy. He said that role now will be filled by American sailors through the end of the year.
British forces were part of the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq that ousted Saddam Hussein, and the last remaining UK combat troops withdrew in July 2009.
The British Ministry of Defence says 179 British troops have died in Iraq since 2003. When Prime Minister Tony Blair sided with US President George W. Bush and dedicated Britain to the Iraq war, his unpopular decision sparked some of the largest demonstrations in a generation.
There is no such thing as “al Qaeda”, there is no one on earth who calls himself a member of “al Qaeda”. “al Qaeda” is a term made up by the U.S. government to be applied to anyone killed during in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no formal organization. There is no secret terrorist network. What there is a is a phantom enemy, a boogyman that was easily sold to the American people for the benefit of the Bush Administration and their friends at PNAC.
Opium production is up, all is well. Remember to be molested by TSA staff on your flight home. Have a nice day.
FreedomCloak 2 days ago 20
Reply @dinavienna This is from a BBC documentary called ‘the power of nightmares’. Look it up. And WAKE UP.
Al Qaeda simply means “the base” or “the database” in reference to CIA/MI6 information on mujahedeen fighters who were funded and trained by the Western nations to fight against the USSR. Wake up America, you are being brainwashed by the mainstream media and government propaganda.
RepublicConstitution 2 hours ago
Excellent documentary and was amazed they put it on the BBC.
capricious71 5 hours ago
The criminal network as with so many other things is Zionist Jews and their sayanim helpers – Google “Israel did 911 all the proof in the world” for an introduction into this groups criminality that shrouds the World today.
US Media is owned by 4 Zionist Jews with Shabbas Goy Rupert Murdoch. Are they really going to give you anything but lies?
bimbo99 6 hours ago
@ddariusj88 Well thank you!
ljrow49 7 hours ago
@ljrow49 The vigilance of your eyes is definitely outstanding!
@ FreedomCloak awesome man! Lol mnap128 8 hours ago
When it was suggested the war in Iraq was about oil, Tony Blair,then the British prime minister, had this to say on February 6,2003
“Let me just deal with the oil thing because… the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It’s not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons…”
In fact, as I and numerous others, have reported on many occasions before, both during and after the war, oil was a principal if not the principal reason, for going to war. The reason for thinking this comes from any reading of oil history in the Middle East. The modern industry began in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), which today probably boasts the largest reserves in the world. Current knowledge of oil and the war in large part comes from the work of a researcher in the UK named Greg Muttitt. Among other things, Muttitt has had close contacts with the Iraq oil workers union. Now Muttitt has written a book–released in Britain and India this week, called Fuel on the Fire–that makes crystal clear the role of big oil. His research had turned up hundreds of pages of heretofore secret documents and is further backed up by interviews with executives of the international oil companies.
Many discussions of lies that launch wars quickly come around to the question “Well then why did they want the war?” There is usually more than one single motive involved, but the motives are not terribly hard to find.
Unlike many soldiers who have been lied to, most of the key war deciders, the masters of war who determine whether or not wars happen, do not in any sense have noble motives for what they do. Though noble motives can be found in the reasoning of some of those involved, even in some of those at the highest levels of decision making, it is very doubtful that such noble intentions alone would ever generate wars.
Economic and imperial motives have been offered by presidents and congress members for most of our major wars, but they have not been endlessly hyped and dramatized as have other alleged motivations. War with Japan was largely about the economic value of Asia, but fending off the evil Japanese emperor made a better poster. The Project for the New American Century, a think tank pushing for war on Iraq, made its motives clear a dozen years before it got its war — motives that included U.S. military dominance of the globe with more and larger bases in key regions of “American interest.” That goal was not repeated as often or as shrilly as “WMD,” “terrorism,” “evildoer,” or “spreading democracy.”
The most important motivations for wars are the least talked about, and the least important or completely fraudulent motivations are the most discussed. The important motivations, the things the war masters mostly discuss in private, include electoral calculations, control of natural resources, intimidation of other countries, domination of geographic regions, financial profits for friends and campaign funders, the opening up of consumer markets, and prospects for testing new weapons.
If politicians were honest, electoral calculations would deserve to be openly discussed and would constitute no ground for shame or secrecy. Elected officials ought to do what will get them reelected, within the structure of laws that have been democratically established. But our conception of democracy has become so twisted that reelection as a motivation for action is hidden away alongside profiteering. This is true for all areas of government work; the election process is so corrupt that the public is viewed as yet another corrupting influence. When it comes to war, this sense is heightened by politicians’ awareness that wars are marketed with lies.
THE “WIKI-WEASEL” VINDICATES BUSH, WAR, TORTURE AND…?
“Wikileaks is a big and dangerous US intelligence Con Job which will likely be used to police the Internet”….F. William Engdahl
“supporting WikiLeaks founder, Julius Assange and..calling for revolution due to government cover-ups are intended results of a counterintelligence reverse tactic”…Bob Levin, FBI whistleblower
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
I can only say one word, flabbergasted. When I got the article by Larry Elder, a journalist who is known for finding the real story behind the story, I nearly dropped. The recent release of diplomatic cables, described by former National Security Advisor Zbiegnew Brzezinski as “seeded” with “pointed” facts to “favor an agenda” by an “intelligence agency” clearly restores long discredited George “W” Bush to a place of honor.
“Bush, hammered by the insidious “Bush Lied, People Died” mantra, endured one of the most vicious smears against any president in history. He is owed an apology.
When Hollywood makes ‘The Vindication of George W. Bush,’ maybe Sean Penn can play the lead.”
Bush, assaulted on all sides, his book tours besieged by protests, a president who left office with a country reeling in debt, losing two wars and now with his former vice president, Dick Cheney, indicted for bribery, is a hard sell as a hero. Before this, Wikileaks championed the war on Iraq and its planned expansion into Iran, a continuing theme, as Brzezinski points out, always the “point” of Wikileaks, war on Iran. Everything always goes there. “Hello, how’s your mom, wasn’t that an Iranian I saw sneaking into her garage…?”
