Friday, August 12, 2005

Guardian Gets Taken In By Second
Sweet-Talking Islamofascist In a Month

From Harry's Place:

Last January, the Guardian published an edited version of a speech attributed to Osama Bin Laden in the form of an opinion piece in its Comments section. This article was the source of some hilarity, as wits started to describe Osama Bin Laden as a "Guardian columnist".

Slightly less amusing was last month's "Aslam Affair", in which the Guardian published a series of articles by an activist in Hizb'ut Tahrir, a racist theocratic totalitarian political party.

(Pastorius note: Hizb'ut Tahrir was recently banned by the British government, as an organization which supported terrorism and preached Jihad.)

There were really two aspects to the Aslam Affair. The first was that Aslam's articles were in effect propaganda pieces for Hizb'ut Tahrir, but that the Guardian had not disclosed to their readership, Aslam's political activism. The second was that the Guardian clearly had little understanding of the nature of Hizb'ut Tahrir's politics.

Today's Comment piece by Sa’ad al-Fagih [sic] is, I think, a somewhat more worrying example of the Guardian's naiivity in the field of extremist Islamist politics. The essence of the article is that the United Kingdom government needs to change its policies as it is playing into the hands of al-Qaida.

What concerns me is this.

Sa’ad al-Faqih described in the footnote to the article as “a leading exiled Saudi dissident and director of the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia”.

In fact Sa’ad al-Faqih is a little bit more than that.

Al-Faiqih seems to have bought the satellite phone which was used by one of the Al Qaeda suicide bombers who blew up the US embassy in Nairobi.

Sa'ad al-Faqih, was "designated" by the United States Treasury on December 21, 2004 and on 23 Dec 2004 was named on the United Nations 1267 Committee consolidated list of individuals belonging to or associated with the Al-Qaida organisation.

The list of damning evidence against Sa’ad al-Faqih is extensive. Go read the rest over at Harry's Place.

From what I can tell, the Guardian is the paper of record for the liberal end of the British political spectrum. Harry calls the Guardian naive here. Well, if they are naive, it means they don't know things that I do know.

Here's the thing, until 9/11, I was a typical dumb American. I played in rock bands, worked as a salesman, and hung out at the mall with my wife. Admittedly, in the past four years I have done quite a bit of research on the history of anti-Semitism and the Islamic Jihad. But somehow, it doesn't make sense to me that four years of study on my part should put me ahead of the Guardian (a world-class newspaper) on the knowledge curve.

Let's put it this way, the Guardian is either Liar, Lunatic or Stupid. In any of the three cases, they need to violently overhaul their editorial staff, or they need to put themselves out of our misery.