Amidst 911 Hard Hat Pledge Founder’s erroneous rhetoric may be some important facts that ARE worth knowing and noting

During Wednesday evening’s 49th Parallel Forum broadcast, 911 Hard Hat Pledge Founder Andy Sullivan made several references to New York City Mayor’s Michael Bloomberg’s links to a Shari’ah finance platform.  While he did not go into specific details beyond the assertion and related intimation that Bloomberg is selling America down the river for his own personal financial gain, I was nonetheless intrigued by his suggestion.

To begin, and as I am sure will come as no surprise to anyone who has been reading my posts pertaining to the US overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran in 1952 I have, based on extensive research, reasonably concluded that this action did not ultimately serve America’s best interests, in that it most likely led to the 9/11 attack.  In short, the related point here is that throughout world history in general, oligarchical self-serving interests have in many instances (and in most every country) trumped the best interest of the people.  So while unlikely – and I am continuing my research into the accusation, the purported Bloomberg financial ties (and their implied meaning) should not be summarily dismissed.

Within this context, and despite the fact that I believe that Andy’s arguments are based more on understandably emotional rhetoric than well-researched facts, my natural curiosity was peaked.  Specifically, upon what factual basis if any is Andy’s claim that Bloomberg is forwarding the interests of Shari’ah extremism?  Of even greater importance is the question surrounding the veracity of his claim that the basis for the Shari’ah movement is world domination.  It is this latter point that I will address in today’s post.

As a matter of clarification, Shari’ah is the sacred law of Islam which is derived from two primary sources of Islamic law.  These are the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, as well as the example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah or living habits of Muhammad.

While generally speaking, Muslims believe that Shari’ah is God’s law, similar to Judaism’s Orthodox, Conservative and Reform movements or Christianity’s denominations such as Catholicism and Protestantism, there are also Modernist, Traditionalist and Fundamentalist movements in terms of Shari’ah’s interpretation.

Unfortunately Andy, who did not make these important distinctions in his arguments choosing instead to bundle everything under the Shari’ah banner, this is an important misnomer that hurts the creditability of his argument.  Whether intentional or resulting from a lack of research (with Andy I believe it is the latter), it is not only misleading but inflammatory as well.  Or to put it in more concise terms, while all Muslims believe in Shari’ah or their God’s law as described above, it is only the Fundamentalists and likely only a handful of extremists within that group who are the proselytizing terrorists looking to conquer the world.

The bigger problem with Andy’s inaccuracies as I had alluded to earlier, which extends well beyond demonizing an an entire religion, is that it may actually detract from those potential arguments that could go a long ways towards legitimizing the 911 Hard Hat Pledge’s platform with moderate, mainstream Americans.

For example, and bearing in mind that I am not a fan, to put it mildly, of Pamela Geller, she wrote in her Atlas Shrugs February 22nd, 2011 blog post “Ground Zero Mosque Mayor Bloomberg Launches Islamic (Sharia) Finance Platform” the following;

Back on June 5th, I reported that Islamic supremacist Imam Rauf was a “prominent figure” in the Malaysian “Perdana Organization.” Perdana funded the  genocidal Jew-hating terrorist group behind the murderous attack on Jewish soldiers on the warship flotilla. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a key figure in the Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its website, was the single biggest donor ($366,000).

Now this is an important revelation regarding Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in that one cannot discount the fact that you are often known by the company you keep.

Not to be confused with the Perdana Leadership Foundation, an organization that to this point in time appears to have no direct ties with Shari’ah extremist elements, the Perdana Global Peace Organization in which Iman Feisal plays an important role, does support a position that we might all be wise to prudently consider in assessing the risk to our collective well being.

Opening the main post from the site’s front page titled “Support Iraqi protests,” the following is an important excerpt from the article:

While millions across the world watched live 18 days of dramatic revolution that ousted the US-allied torture-friendly regime of Hosni Mubarak, no one is offered live feed from Iraq of its people’s uprising against an enemy much worse.

And while President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are being lauded for their supposed support for Egyptian democracy, no one is asking the key question Washington can’t answer: When will members of this US administration and the three previous face trial for crimes against humanity in Iraq?

Despite US hypocrisy, nothing will prevent the collapse of US geostrategic goals in the Arab region. It is not by direct confrontation that this is happening, nor by ideology. The interests of the people are opposed to the model of underdevelopment Washington and allies propose and police.

I think it is important to note that the reference to the US-allied torture-friendly regime of Hosni Mubarak, goes a long ways towards confirming my position that the overthrow of Mossadegh’s democrats and subsequent support of the Shah’s brutal dictatorship in Iran in 1952 ultimately put America on the wrong side of the 1979 Iranian Revolution as well as the events that are unfolding in the Mideast today.  Thank you President Eisenhower and Prime Minster Churchill!

The problem I have with the article is not in the accuracy of certain facts, which by the way would as 9/11 did with many Americans, stir-up a great deal of anger and resentment within the Muslim world regarding U.S. support of Mubarak as well as other despot dictators including the Shah and Saddam Hussein.  It is the tone of the article itself, and the site in general that is disconcerting.

Now before you go running to the phones or bombarding me with e-mails, relative to comparing 9/11 with an Operation Ajax (which by the way likely led to a considerably higher body count over the 20 plus years of the Shah’s brutal rule when compared with the number of lives that were lost in the September 2001 attack), we cannot discount the far reaching implications of supporting cruel dictators who through U.S. Government support inflicted without challenge unspeakable crimes against it’s citizenry and humanity in general.

Or to put it another way, the conduct of the Shah and Mubarak during their tenure as rulers of their respective countries are the similar to the acts that saw Serbian President Slobodan Milošević brought before the Hague on charges of committing war crimes.  The very nature of this hypocrisy in which one is brought to justice while another is not, is the fodder that feeds extremism especially amongst a largely uninformed and uneducated populace.

Again, this is yet another example of the unintended consequences of a flawed U.S. Foreign Policy back in 1952, in that it resulted in America supporting the type of leadership conduct that we has a democratic nation would not tolerate in our own leaders.

All this being said, we cannot discount the seriousness of the ramifications and very real potential threat this poses through the extremist and terrorist platforms that grew as a result of the aforementioned flawed Foreign Policies of previous Administrations.  It is also based on this premise that the fears expressed by the Gellers and Sullivans gain the most credence, largely because the Muslim anger to which they are responding now resides within them as a result of 9/11.

The real question going forward is simply this . . . armed with this information what are we going to do.  The answer to this very important question will likely determine the nature of the planet over the next 50 to 100 years.

30

Comments
2 Responses to “Amidst 911 Hard Hat Pledge Founder’s erroneous rhetoric may be some important facts that ARE worth knowing and noting”
  1. jimbouchard says:

    Jon raises an interesting question at the end of his post, which may in fact become part of an upcoming episode of 49th Parallel- what will we now do? I just answered an appeal from a dear friend in Africa, where sentiment has now shifted from the attitude of “US stay out” to “when will you intervened?” The situation has reached critical mass in Libya where Colonel Gadhafi’s answer to the populist uprising is now to strafe his own people with their own air force.

    Should we now intervene? If we do- will the Libyan people accept a US, UN or NATO military presence on their soil or will we once again, as my esteemed colleague to the north points out, end up on the “wrong” side of the fight? Will intervention simply fuel the passion of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other radical groups?

    It should also be noted that despite Jon’s contention, and he has supported it well, that US policy as early as 1952 has shaped much of the anti-US sentiment we face today, there is another player on the field.

    Perhaps the most egregious error, and one that was repeated in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is that while our leaders rightfully pointed out that the US was not fighting the indigenous people in any of these countries, neither were we most directly fighting our named enemies. These were all proxy wars to some degree and fought to slow or stop the military, political and economic intrusions from the USSR and China.

    The aircraft now strafing the Libyan people are Soviet era Migs and other Russian planes. The rifles are AKs. The bullets are manufactured in Russia.

    We unintentionally armed the Taliban when we saw them as “Freedom Fighters” in their war against the Soviets.

    The weapons of mass destruction so feared in Iraq were being produced from raw materials originating in Russia and sold through vendors in France and Germany. (For those who still argue that there were no WMDs in Iraq, see the pictures and videos of the graves of thousands of Kurds- who we abandoned in their fight against Hussein after instigating their attempted rebellion.)

    There are layers upon layers of intrigue in this mess and despite the ease and propensity for making the United States out to be the only self-interested meddler, there seems to be few clean hands among the developed nations of the world who were all too eager to do business with despots, dictators and tyrants.

    No matter what the cause, no matter what the motivation- the reality is that we do face some serious and real threats and decisions we make over the next few months will shape our relations with the Middle East for the next several generations.

    We have the opportunity today to pick the right side, to abandon the effort, or once again fight on the side most diametrically opposed to our core principles and values. Which will we pick?

    And remember- the elephant in the closet is that the right choice may be the most expensive and inconvenient economically. Do we have the courage and ethic to pay more for our energy resources now in hopes that we will be supporting common people in their pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    Best thoughts to all!
    Jim

    • I love the comment “war by proxy” Jim and, you are so right regarding the fact that there are indeed many who have what you called dirty hands re my comment;

      In short, the related point here is that throughout world history in general, oligarchical self-serving interests have in many instances (and in most every country) trumped the best interest of the people. So while unlikely – and I am continuing my research into the accusation, the purported Bloomberg financial ties (and their implied meaning) should not be summarily dismissed.

      This is definitely a story that we will be following for some time.

  • Books Written by Jon Hansen

%d bloggers like this: