The War on 'Aspiring Jihadists'

Below is a report from Stratfor, part of the lucrative terrorism industry. The report exemplifies the self-serving nature of commentary emanating from self-styled "Terrorism Experts".

It relates a tale of "a four-month FBI investigation and sting operation, during which undercover agents had been communicating with Daoud [a suspect now under arrest] and recording his statements. Sting operations", it notes, "have become the tactic of choice for the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement organizations when investigating would-be jihadists."

Note that the suspect was arrested only five days earlier, so any criminal proceedings are well in the future. Like the British satirical magazine Private Eye which recently disgraced itself by imputing guilt to Julian Assange on its front cover, Stratfor is willing to publish prejudicial matter about ongoing criminal investigations. Where they are getting their narrative from is unclear, but we can be pretty sure it isn't the defendant.

The report seems to be based on the premise that the FBI's conduct here - and in all the other similar cases - is unproblematic. The defence of entrapment is treated, in true Dirty Harry style, as one of those pesky 'technicalities', an obstacle to be overcome by ticking the right boxes.

The law of entrapment is of course rather complex, and in the US favours the authorities rather more than one might suppose natural justice would permit. But two things can be said with some certainty: first, the author of this piece is quite wrong to suppose that 'coercion' is necessary for entrapment - it's not entirely clear that he even knows what the word means. And second, whatever the exact legal position in the relevant jurisdiction, this case and a fair number of others like it, stinks.

The article states that "Daoud was a typical aspirational jihadist" - yes, of course he was, since 'aspirational jihadist' here means no more than 'the kind of loudmouthed showoff that is likely to attract the attention of FBI provocateurs'. There are a number of vague and uncheckable allegations which appear to have been fed to the author by the authorities, such as that Mr Loudmouth had attempted to 'recruit' a number of people to help him plot some kind of attack - we have no idea what this amounted to, except that he did not in fact actually recruit anyone for anything until he 'crossed paths' with an FBI provocateur - at which point the issue of who recruited whom becomes an interesting and open question.

"By himself," we are told - and he was by himself - "Daoud was still a long way from posing a direct threat to the United States". Some of the commentary has an air of parody - "One of the characteristics of dramatic attacks of the sort Daoud envisioned, ['envisioned'] however, is that they are difficult to execute alone -- especially if the individual doesn't know how to make explosives or a bomb." Yes, I should say so. The author continues: "Early in Daoud's planning, [so 'early in his planning' that there wasn't any plan at all, it seems] he saw it necessary to reach out for help, which helped to tip off law enforcement agents." Yes, to tip off law enforcement agents that here might be a clueless idiot who, given sufficient encouragement, assistance and coaching might provide them with a terrorism conviction.

The author notes that the FBI rejected the option of "immediately arresting Daoud and making a weak case to a federal judge based on an 18-year-old's online rants". Yes, I bet they did. Instead, "investigators continued to monitor Daoud, seeking more evidence to make a stronger case and get a more severe sentence." Or indeed, one might suppose just to make sure that he was as much of a joker as he appeared, and wouldn't be recruited by someone who actually had a plan or some expertise? No - quite the opposite, it seems. Not satisfied with monitoring this character, "the FBI set up a sting operation, during which authorities recorded Daoud plotting an attack with an undercover law enforcement agent." Not with anyone else, just this undercover agent provocateur.

"In a textbook sting operation targeting an aspiring jihadist, an undercover agent offers the suspect an explosive device (or other deadly weapon). As soon as the suspect attempts to use the inert explosive device, authorities have all the evidence they need to charge the suspect with attempt to use a weapon of mass destruction. The FBI has conducted dozens of these sting operations, where it finds an individual who self-identifies as an aspiring jihadist and then uses informants or undercover agents to collect more evidence against the suspect. Many of those put on trial have received 20- to 30-year sentences."

Having laid out this 'textbook' model of gaining terrorism convictions (which will of course be cited by political and media hacks, spooks and 'terrorism experts' as real and serious disrupted plots, of course), even this author seems to realise it may be necessary to allay some obvious concerns about the usefulness and justice of this approach:

"While the government's pursuit of an incompetent, would-be jihadist may seem extreme, individuals like Daoud (known in some law enforcement circles as "Kramer jihadists," after the bumbling character from Seinfeld) have posed a threat before when they have linked up with competent jihadist operatives. For example, the FBI conducted surveillance on the group that would conduct the 1993 World Trade Center attack but dropped the investigation when the informant turned out to be problematic and when it was determined that the group did not possess the skills to pose a threat."

Er, let me stop you there, Ben. You say that the FBI dropped the investigation? I think you must mean 'discontinued their surveillance'. So that would appear to be the problem there wouldn't it. The FBI stopped watching people they had identified as potential future recruits. |So what you should be recommending is that the FBI should have continued keeping any eye on the suspects - who by your own account would then have led them to some actual terrorist recruiters. Of course that would also require that these bozos had not already been put away for some fake crime entirely manufactured by the FBI, wouldn't it.

Aspiring Jihadist Arrested in Chicago

September 20, 2012 | 0900 GMT

By Ben West
On the evening of Sept. 15, Adel Daoud parked a Jeep Cherokee loaded with a large explosive device outside a bar in downtown Chicago. As he walked down the street away from the vehicle, he activated a trigger to detonate the bomb. The bomb, however, was inert, and FBI agents positioned nearby immediately took Daoud, an 18-year-old from the Chicago suburbs, into custody.
Daoud had been the subject of a four-month FBI investigation and sting operation, during which undercover agents had been communicating with Daoud and recording his statements. Sting operations have become the tactic of choice for the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement organizations when investigating would-be jihadists. As U.S. law enforcement agencies perfect their sting operations to identify aspiring jihadists and prevent attacks, jihadists, too, can be expected to innovate and evolve alternate means of communication and vetting of those with whom they collaborate.

Details of Daoud's Case

Daoud was a typical aspirational jihadist. He read Inspire magazine (an online jihadist publication), watched jihadist training videos, cited arguments from the late Anwar al-Awlaki, participated in jihadist forums denouncing U.S. policy and justified attacks against U.S. citizens. He was not shy in voicing his intent to kill Americans in retaliation for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Daoud tried to recruit at least six people over the span of seven months to help plot an attack against the United States before he crossed paths with an undercover agent on the Internet around May 2012. Based on records later obtained by investigators, Daoud did not appear to have any hard skills to conduct a bombing attack. He downloaded several instructional documents and videos on how to make explosives and build bombs, but there is no indication that Daoud attempted to make any weapons himself. Instead, he talked about going to Saudi Arabia or fighting in Yemen, although he expressed a desire to conduct attacks in the United States before going abroad.

By himself, Daoud was still a long way from posing a direct threat to the United States, but he was bent on conducting an attack. Along the way, he made a number of mistakes. For one, it is apparent from Daoud's conversations with the undercover agent, documented in the Sept. 15 criminal complaint, that Daoud did not heed all of the advice that he read in Inspire magazine. Over the years, Inspire has emphasized that big, elaborate attacks are risky, expensive and hard to put together. One of the magazine's main contributors, Nasir al-Wahayshi, has argued that small, simpler attacks such as the Fort Hood shooting in 2009 are much easier to execute, are more effective than bombings and do not open up aspiring jihadists to discovery by the authorities during the planning stage.

Daoud unequivocally rejected the idea of a shooting attack, even mocking the July 20 shooting that killed 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. Daoud insisted on carrying out a spectacular attack, killing "a lot of enemies" and making headlines worldwide. One of the characteristics of dramatic attacks of the sort Daoud envisioned, however, is that they are difficult to execute alone -- especially if the individual doesn't know how to make explosives or a bomb. Early in Daoud's planning, he saw it necessary to reach out for help, which helped to tip off law enforcement agents.

Rather than immediately arresting Daoud and making a weak case to a federal judge based on an 18-year-old's online rants, investigators continued to monitor Daoud, seeking more evidence to make a stronger case and get a more severe sentence. The FBI set up a sting operation, during which authorities recorded Daoud plotting an attack with an undercover law enforcement agent. The FBI also watched Daoud conduct surveillance on the bar he intended to attack. In a textbook sting operation targeting an aspiring jihadist, an undercover agent offers the suspect an explosive device (or other deadly weapon). As soon as the suspect attempts to use the inert explosive device, authorities have all the evidence they need to charge the suspect with attempt to use a weapon of mass destruction. The FBI has conducted dozens of these sting operations, where it finds an individual who self-identifies as an aspiring jihadist and then uses informants or undercover agents to collect more evidence against the suspect. Many of those put on trial have received 20- to 30-year sentences.

While the government's pursuit of an incompetent, would-be jihadist may seem extreme, individuals like Daoud (known in some law enforcement circles as "Kramer jihadists," after the bumbling character from Seinfeld) have posed a threat before when they have linked up with competent jihadist operatives. For example, the FBI conducted surveillance on the group that would conduct the 1993 World Trade Center attack but dropped the investigation when the informant turned out to be problematic and when it was determined that the group did not possess the skills to pose a threat. Later, the group met Omar Abdel-Rahman (also known as the Blind Sheikh), who arranged for competent jihadist operatives -- Abdul Basit (also known as Ramzi Yousef) and his partner, Ahmed Ajaj -- to come in and lead the group of amateur jihadists. Under the leadership of Basit, the group transformed into the terrorist cell that successfully attacked the World Trade Center.

Other jihadist operatives, such as Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, were similarly incompetent but became dangerous when competent bombmakers and operatives exploited their willingness to conduct jihad. Given these past failures, U.S. counterterrorism officials have no appetite for letting aspiring jihadists slip through the cracks just because they appear incompetent on the surface.

Pre-Empting Entrapment

With the investigation under way, the FBI initiated its efforts to dispel any inklings of coercion. Defense attorneys, civil rights groups and some in the media have alleged that FBI sting operations targeting aspiring jihadists are entrapment -- where law enforcement agents coerce an individual who would not otherwise have posed a threat into an illegal act. The FBI's handling of Daoud's case shows that it is taking steps to combat these charges.

Several times during recorded conversations, the FBI undercover agent gave Daoud opportunities to back away from his planned attack. The agent cited Ramadan as a reason to delay the attack and further delayed by fabricating excuses, such as needing to wait for approval from his sheikh. On at least two occasions, the undercover agent directly asked Daoud if he was sure he wanted to carry out his attack. The agent emphasized that Daoud had to have jihad in his heart in order to carry out a justified attack. He stressed that Daoud couldn't be pressured into the attack, that he had to be completely self-motivated to execute it. Any outside help would be just that -- help, not coercion.

As stated above, this step was likely included deliberately. Entrapment has been raised as a possible defense in the upcoming trial of Mohamed Mohamud, the 21-year-old Somali-born American accused of attempting to bomb a Christmas ceremony in Portland, Ore., in November 2010. Even though the entrapment defense hasn't proved to be successful, to avoid a recurrence of this defense in Daoud's case, the undercover agent cleverly used jihadist principles to get Daoud to emphatically show that he wanted to commit an attack himself and that nobody was forcing him to do it.

Recordings of these conversations will make for a more solid case when prosecutors put Daoud on trial in the coming weeks or months.

The Effectiveness of the Sting

U.S. law enforcement agencies have been extremely active with these types of jihadist sting operations, especially in the past three years. While most of the suspects that the stings involve do not appear to pose a serious threat at the outset, aspiring jihadists can be dangerous if they encounter the right people with the right tradecraft.

In addition to being an effective law enforcement tactic, sting operations also threaten the integrity of jihadists' communication channels. Such operations will increasingly make aspiring jihadists skeptical of the person to whom they are speaking. In Daoud's case, he told the undercover agent that one of his contacts thought he was talking to a spy. Daoud's sheikh, who was not aware of the planned attack, also repeatedly discouraged him from talking about jihad and violence. Others around him knew the risk of discussing plans of attack, but Daoud persisted due to his inexperience.

U.S. law enforcement's struggle with aspiring jihadists will be a drawn-out affair, punctuated by action and counteraction. The FBI and other U.S. agencies are refining their skills in sting operations, which have proved to be an effective tool for pre-empting terrorist attacks. The success of these stings will plant doubts in aspiring jihadists' minds about who they can trust, further complicating their efforts to conduct dramatic attacks. Now the onus is on the jihadists to adjust. They can be expected to implement alternate methods of communication and to step up efforts to verify one another's identities to avoid detection and arrest.

Aspiring Jihadist Arrested in Chicago is republished with permission of Stratfor.

From the Standpoint of Michael Burleigh

This is a brief exchange with historian Michael Burleigh in Standpoint Blog comments. I had linked to it, but the link is now dead. It is however reproduced elsewhere. It's not possible to link directly to it at that location, so I'm copying it here.

Read more »

Sadly all too real

This article from the 22 May Guardian International Edition (reproduced below) also appeared on p24 of the UK Grauniad on 22 May. But it isn't on guardian.co.uk, which has two other versions - with less highly prejudicial headlines - both from agencies and posted the day before.

The missing version is actually from a real live Guardian reporter in NYC it appears, who hints at the propaganda value of the 'plot': the group was arrested amid an extraordinary display of police firepower including the use of an 18-wheel armoured truck; refers to the apparently naive nature of the conspiracy; and reports that there was no evidence they were linked to a wider network of jihadists.

On the other hand, the subtitle Police informant gave terror gang dud weapons fails to mention that the FBI supplied the weapons. I'm not suggesting there is any particular significance in any of this - I mention it mostly just to record what was actually printed.

But on the subject of the actual events: call me a swivel-eyed hairy-palmed conspiracy theorist (alternatively, a stater of the blindingly obvious), but it rather seems the FBI may (inadvertently, overzealously...choose your adverb) have acted as agents provocateurs. Without their intervention, would the four really now be facing charges of 'conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction within the United States' and 'conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles'? (Thanks to Tom McElroy of AP for actually bothering to report what the charges were.) It certainly makes a nice spectacle and keeps the propaganda campaign previously known as the War on Terror ticking over nicely.

[Update: now seen this detailed account, which I'd say confirms my strong suspicions and resolves the indeterminacy in the state of my palms: they are smooth after all.] I can't help thinking on this occasion, as I do probably about once a fortnight or so, of 'accomplished terrorist' Dhiren Barot aka the Doodle Bomber, whose remaining decades in Belmarsh look likely to be punctuated only by the occasional scalding.


22 May 2009

The Guardian International Edition
Ed Pilkington, New York

FBI foils jihadist bomb attacks on New York
Police informant gave terror gang dud weapons
Fireball plan shows threat to city a reality, says mayor

Four self-styled jihadists from New York planned to shock America by bombing two synagogues and bringing down a military plane in an attack conceived as revenge for the deaths of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan, police said yesterday.

Photograph: Justin Kahn/WireImage The four men intended to carry out the attacks on Wednesday evening, planting what they thought were car bombs outside two Bronx synagogues and planning to detonate the devices at the same time as they shot down a plane with an antiaircraft missile.

But the group was arrested amid an extraordinary display of police firepower including the use of an 18-wheel armoured truck used to block the suspects’ vehicle. New York’s police chief and the city’s mayor warned yesterday that the arrests underlined the continuing security threats against the city since 9/11. But the emerging details of the plot also illuminated the ability of federal authorities to infiltrate and track nascent terrorist activities.

According to the federal case against the men, the plot began to take shape as early as June last year. James Cromitie, a petty criminal with numerous convictions who is identified as the ringleader, is alleged to have begun making inquiries about buying explosives through a mosque in Newburgh, a town about 60 miles north of New York City where he lived. He said he was upset about the war in Afghanistan, as his father was an Afghan immigrant to the US. Cromitie said he wanted to do “something to America”, lamenting that “the best target was already hit” in an apparent reference to the World Trade Centre.

Even at that early stage the police were aware of his intentions. An informant posing as a member of an extreme Pakistani group was in contact with Cromitie at the mosque and remained closely associated with him, using hidden audio and video equipment to record conversations over the following 11 months.

In October, the charges find, Cromitie began discussions with his conspirators, whom he had met in prison. Two of the three are US citizens and the third Haitian; they are all converts to Islam.

The informant tracked the meetings of the four men, and arranged, with FBI help, to supply them with 17kg (37lbs) of C-4 plastic explosives and a Stinger antiaircraft missile. The men were unaware that all the weaponry, including the explosives formed into a bomb-like object by FBI agents, was dud and harmless.

Last month, the charges allege, the men began staking out the synagogues – the Riverdale Temple and the Riverdale Jewish Centre. They also surveyed military aircraft at Stewart air national guard base in Newburgh. The plotters allegedly intended to create a “fireball that would make the country gasp”.

There was no evidence they were linked to a wider network of jihadists. “The group was relatively unsophisticated … and not connected to any outside group,” said Charles Schumer, one of New York state’s two senators.

Despite the apparently naive nature of the conspiracy, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, said the plot showed that threats against the city were “sadly all too real”.

Raymond Kelly, the city’s police commissioner, told a press conference outside the Riverdale Temple that the men had wanted to commit jihad. He quoted one of the four as saying: “If Jews were killed in this attack, that would be alright.”

Review of 'Counterknowledge' by Damian Thompson

Review of 'Counterknowledge' by Damian Thompson - Word version

Full text:

Book Review: Damian Thompson, Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science and Fake History

London: Atlantic Books.

Hardcover: 1 Jan 2008, ISBN 978-1843546757;

Paperback: 1 Jul 2008, ISBN 978-1843546764.

I.

Young-earth creationists in the US have built a museum containing mechanised tableaux showing dinosaurs and humans in Flintstone-style coexistence. ‘Alternative’ therapies of no more medical value than sugar pills are available on the British National Health Service, with homoeopathic hospitals well-established and degree courses available in one of the new universities. In US academia, some ‘Afro-centric’ historians play fast and loose with facts in their attempt to construct a distinctively ‘black’ history which, according to at least one proponent, is teachable only by black people. Meanwhile, postmodernist literary and cultural theorists take it upon themselves to develop ill-conceived philosophical doctrines about the nature of truth and reality - and even in some cases to offer criticisms of such specialised fields as quantum physics.

Damian Thompson criticises all these trends, with copious footnotes and some theoretical discussion. He alerts the reader to many other putative instances of "counterknowledge" - glossed: "misinformation packaged as fact" (p1) - and decries the "casual approach to the truth"(pp12, 44) that underlies and sustains them. This seems a worthwhile project, and in reviews it attracts descriptions such as ‘timely’ and ‘much-needed’. These epithets are somewhat hyperbolic: this is only the latest addition to a substantial body of debunking literature, which goes back at least to Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, first published in 1841.

To adapt a remark of Dr Johnson, while one expects to see it done, one is surprised that it is not done better. While many of Thompson’s points are correct as far as they go, the book’s defects are so numerous and glaring and themselves betray such a ‘casual approach to the truth’ that the reader could be forgiven for thinking that the word ‘Counterknowledge’ embossed across the front categorises its contents rather than defining its subject matter.

Read more »

Private Eye letter

Letter in response to a 'photo-bubble' in Private Eye titled 'Top Judge backs Sharia law', showing Lord Phillips in wig and gown with a speech-bubble saying 'I'm a bit of a Burqa'. The item was the featured photo-bubble for issue 1214 on the Eye website, but has since been replaced by this one: which I like to think might be a result of my rebuke. Letters, Private Eye 1215, 15 July 2008, p13: Wig and Frown Sir, Apparently Lord Phillips is a 'burqa' (geddit?) (page 3, Eye 1214) for stating that private civil disputes may be submitted to a mutually agreed arbitration procedure which could be based on Sharia while obviously still subject to English or Scottish law. It is hard to see why, and given freedom of contract how, the state should intervene to prevent such a practice. The offending photo-bubble is therefore pure 'homburg', and the dismal pun entirely 'surplice' to requirements. Will you now say 'sari' for this ill-considered outburst of tabloid-style muslim-bashing? TIM WILKINSON. Via email.

Daniel Pipes - dishonest coward

[EDIT @ 31 July 2008: NB PLEASE SEE THE NEXT ENTRY FOR AN UPDATE ON THIS MATTER] Below is an item from Daniel Pipes's website.

The website states that Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. I submitted a quick comment in response to it on the 14th of July (his time). Subsequent comments by others were published, but not mine - even though it was neutral in tone, contained no 'offensive' content and was considerably more grammatical and comprehensible than the ramblings in most of the published comments, though to be fair these evidently don't come from native English speakers. The only possible reason for his rejection of my comment was that it demolished the claims he made in his post. His refusal to publish it says a great deal about his intellectual honesty. My rejected comment is reproduced below Pipes's original article.

The Problem with Middle East Studies A Microscopic Investigation

by Daniel Pipes History News Network July 14, 2008

As one of the few pro-U.S. and pro-Israel voices in the field of Middle East studies, I find my views get frequently mangled by others in the field – thus I have had to post a 5,000-word document titled "Department of Corrections (of Others' Factual Mistakes about Me)" on my website.

Usually, the precise evolution of such mistakes escapes me. Recently, however, I discovered just how one developed in three steps and confronted the two academics who made the errors. Their unwillingness to acknowledge their errors illustrates the mixture of incompetence and arrogance of Middle East studies as it is, unfortunately, too often practiced in the academy.

(1) In "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!" National Review, November 19, 1990, I wrote about some of the reasons for Western fears of Muslims:

Muslims have gone through a trauma during the last two hundred years – the tribulation of God's people who unaccountably found themselves at the bottom of the heap. The strains have been enormous and the results agonizing; Muslim countries have the most terrorists and the fewest democracies in the world. Only Turkey (and sometimes Pakistan) is fully democratic, and even there the system is frail. Everywhere else, the head of government got to power through force[,] his own or someone else's. The result is endemic instability plus a great deal of aggression.

Despite such problems, I concluded, "none of this justifies seeing Muslims as the paramount enemy."

(2) Yahya Sadowski, then of the Brookings Institution, quoted the bolded line of the above paragraph in an entirely different context in "The New Orientalism and the Democracy Debate," Middle East Report, July-August 1993, p. 14. Discussing Western considerations of democracy's prospects in the Middle East, Sadowski wrote:

The thesis that Middle Eastern societies are resistant to democratization had been a standard tenet of Orientalist thought for decades, but in the 1980s a new generation of Orientalists inverted some of the old assumptions and employed a new vocabulary which allowed them to link their work to a wider, international debate about the relationship between "civil society" and democratization. These updated arguments sought to prove not only – as neo-Orientalist Daniel Pipes put it – that "Muslim countries have the most terrorists and the fewest democracies in the world," but that they always would.

Sadowski quoted my words accurately but turned their meaning upside-down; he transformed my rather prosaic observation of fact into part of a grand theory that I never enunciated – and which, for the record, I repudiate. Throughout my work, I stress mutability and change and argue against historical essentialism concerning Islam. I see the Muslim world as changing and avoid extrapolations from present-day circumstances to the future. I make a point not to say something will "always" be a certain way. Further, contrary to Sadowski, I hold that Islam and democracy are indeed compatible.

Joel Beinin of Stanford University and Joe Stork of the Middle East Report then gave the Sadowski article legs by reprinting it in their co-edited 1996 University of California Press book, Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report; I am quoted on p. 34.

(3) Then along came Yakub Halabi, at the time a Ph.D. student at the University of Denver, with "Orientalism and US Democratization Policy in the Middle East," International Studies, 36 (1999), pp. 385-87. Halabi relied on Sadowski's distorted version of my words and further elaborated on it, now in the context of his discussion of Western attempts to understand how a passive Muslim people could have brought off the Iranian revolution:

The neo-orientalist school emerged in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution. It was an attempt to remove the anomaly in the orientalist approach that could not explain why a Muslim society rebelled against the Shah. … Orientalists as well as neo-orientalists, however, ignore any sort of modernity or novelty in Islamic societies in general and in the Iranian revolution in particular.

Halabi went on to note that some analysts depicted Islamic movements as not just radical but also anti-Western and anti-modernist.

One such writer Daniel Pipes, for example, depicts Muslims as "permanent" anti-democrats and terrorists. In his words: "Muslim countries [not only] have the most terrorists and the fewest democracies in the world, but that they always will."

"In his words"? Hardly; I said nothing of the sort. Halabi changed my meaning by ascribing the word "permanent" to me, though it appeared nowhere in my essay; by adding two words in square brackets; and by falsely ascribing Sadowski's phrase to me. To complete the transformation, he even altered Sadowski's language, changing the final bolded word from "would" to "will."

As with Sadowski's perversion of my sentence, I disavow the fictitious quote Halabi attributes to me.

=================================================

My comment (verbatim including minor typos):

First, lets be clear that this Halabi character is clearly in the wrong and displays appalling scholarship - first in relying on a secondary source, then by altering the quote so as to change its meaning. It's hard to see how it could be an honest mistake. If his remarks about subjectivity etc are correctly reported, then he also intellectually bankrupt. If Pipes stuck to criticising Halabi, that would be fair enough. But he doesn't restrict himself to that - he attacks Sadowski, who doesn't misrepresent Pipes at all. He states that certain new arguments - part, he claims, of a neo-orientalist trend - say not only what Pipes says - i.e. (in my words) that muslim countries are uniquely terroristic and undemocratic - but also that this is an immutable fact about islam. Pipes himself aggravates his false account of the import of Sadowksi's comments by bolding both the quote and a fragment of the surrounding statement as though they formed a unified and discrete whole. As for Pipes's protests about his own views, he claims: "I see the Muslim world as changing and avoid extrapolations from present-day circumstances to the future. I make a point not to say something will "always" be a certain way." But in the same essay he complains was misrepresented, only three short paragraphs after the comments under dispute, he states: "Muslims are not now politically unified and never will be so." Pipes's protests would be more convincing if he could avoid misrepresentation himself.

Tim Wilkinson

Ratbiter biter

Here's a piece from Private Eye, and an email exchange relating to it:

------------------------------------

Private Eye 1213, 27 June 2008, p8

MEDIA NEWS

TEHRAN TV

ALTHOUGH Britain is in a cold war with Iran, the contrasting fate of Iranian journalists in London shows that the last people to know it occupy senior positions in the Metropolitan Police and Foreign Office.

You would never guess that Iran had held British sailors hostage or supplied the weapons that killed British troops in Basra from the official indulgence shown to Press TV, the state-funded international network of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime. It operates out of studios in Ealing, right next door to Hamas TV.

Inevitably, George Galloway's gorgeous face is on frequent display, but the Iranians have also persuaded British journalists to front shows. Andrew Gilligan hosts one discussion programme, while the former Taliban captive turned Islamist Yvonne Ridley hosts a second.

Behind the cover of impartiality that Gilligan and other ingénues provide, the station works hard to promote links between white neo-fascists and the Islamist far right. The Iranians have - teamed up with the former model Lady Renouf (nee Michele Mainwaring), and the reasons for the mutual attraction are obvious. When her friend David Irving faced charges of Holocaust denial in Austria, Renouf called for "so-called Holocaust -victims to be exhumed to see whether they died from typhoid or gas". She attended the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran and enthused about Ahmadinejad's "open, democratic approach", then suggested to Press TV that it give airtime to another neo-Nazi, Nicholas Kollerstrom, who was forced out of an honorary position at University College, London for not only denying that the Nazis implemented an extermination campaign but adding for good measure that Islamists did not plant the 7/7 bombs in London. (MI5 massacred its own people, apparently, then fitted up innocent jihadis.)

Although Britain has financial sanctions against Iran, no action has been taken to stem the flow of funds from Tehran to the station. Fair enough, you might think, as we believe in freedom of speech in this country. But when it comes to the enemies of theocratic rule, British liberalism is nowhere to be seen.

Press has a rival: Your TV, which has been broadcasting from London since 2002. It supports the overthrow of the mullahs and hopes that one day Iran will be a democratic country with a constitutional monarchy, rather like ours. The authorities, however, can't see the similarity. In 2005, the Met raided the home of its founder,, Frood Fouladvand. Coincidentally, the police action occurred on the same day in 2005 that Iran was holding a rigged election.

Fouladvand is an Iranian atheist who denounces what has been done to his country in the name of religion. Death threats from Iran and Hezbollah have followed. Far from saying that Britain is a free country where people are entitled to denounce religion if they wish, the Foreign Office has bent over backwards to placate the mullahs.

Reuters quoted the British embassy in Tehran as saying: "The British government does not share Mr Fouladvand's views. We deplore any attacks on Islam... We condemn those who stir up division."

A harsher condemnation awaits Fouladvand too. In 2007, he visited Turkey and was lured, to the border with Iran on the promise of meeting members of the underground opposition. No one in the west has seen him since, and his colleagues' told the Eye they were sure he was being held in Iran and faced imminent execution.

If the regime does kill him, Press TV is unlikely to broadcast protests.


'Ratbiter'

----------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Wilkinson [mailto:otisblue@googlemail.com]
Sent: 01 July 2008 10:53
To: Strobes
Subject: Ratbiter, issue 1213, 27 Jun

Sir,

Ratbiter calls for Iran-funded Press TV to be shut down, citing a spurious 'cold war' and guilt by association with Holocaust-deniers. He contrasts the UK government's 'indulgence' of Press TV with its 2004 censure of Your TV's Iranian founder Foud Fouladvand. In fact the government, invoking the rule of law, repudiated Fouladvand's views while asserting its readiness to protect him: a Voltairean sentiment not so very 'far from saying that Britain is a free country where people are entitled to criticise religion if they wish', and certainly no attack on free speech.

Ratbiter mutters darkly of the 'coincidence' of Fouladvand's 2005 arrest with the Iranian election. As any Eye-reader no, all governments sometimes continue politics by corrupt or clandestine means. But on the face of it, this was just another arrest made under recent 'terror' legislation and based on insubstantial intelligence. The station continued to broadcast from London.

Ratbiter sees in diplomatic verbiage a double standard favouring the Iranian enemy, while his own bias is to be backed by a political crackdown. He takes a gratuitous sideswipe at 'Northwoods-sans-Kennedy' theories which, if overblown, are not entirely irrational given the climate of hawkish deceit and the post-7/7 evidence vacuum. He glosses over the abuse, and the abusiveness, of terror laws. He announces Cold War II. With investigative reporters like this, who needs propagandists?

Now that the Eye is cheerleading for? the Orwellian 'War on Terror' I don't have much hope that this letter will be printed in full.

Yours in renewed mourning for Paul Foot,

Tim Wilkinson


---------------------------------------------
2008/7/4 Strobes :

Dear Mr Wilkinson



Ratbiter replies:



"1. We don't call for Press TV to be shut down.
2. It is not Voltarian to say of a theocratic dictatorship 'The British government does not share Mr Fouladvand's views. We deplore any attacks on Islam.' It is Voltarian to say ecrassez l'infame.
3. It is not gratuitous to take a sideswipe at Islamists and neo-Nazis who say that MI5 planted the London bombs, it would be negligent not to.
4. We do not gloss over 'the abuse, and the abusiveness, of terror laws' they are not mentioned in the piece as they are entirely irrelevant to it.
5. We are not cheer leading the war on terror merely announcing that a journalist has in all probability been murdered by a reactionary regime."



Thank you for your letter.



Ed

---------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Wilkinson [mailto:otisblue@googlemail.com]
Sent: 05 July 2008 07:10
To: Strobes
Subject: Re: Ratbiter, issue 1213, 27 Jun



Sir, thank you very much for your response. Though you presumably do not wish to enter into a correspondence, I feel it worth supplying the following brief rejoinders.

1. I think you do, de facto: you call for the government to cut off its funding - and agree that such a measure appears in conflict with free speech rights.

2. Agreed, of course not all of the Deputy Head of Mission's remarks were Voltairean.

3. Nazis deserve to be sideswept. The gratuitousness of a swipe (or the non-negligence of its omission) depends on context. 7/7 conspiracy theories a) were thought obscure enough to need a gloss - in parody I might add, b) were falsely associated with Holocaust denial (no mention of Kollerstrom's interest in crop circles) and c) are just about the last kind of thing one should be happy about the government suppressing, even if unlike parliament you want certain opinions about the Holocaust banned.

4 The abuse of terror laws, in contrast, is relevant - you allege that it has been the instrument of clandestine political action. The 'anti-terror' legal apparatus makes this kind of corruption much easier and its investigation, criticism or challenge more difficult.

5. Not 'merely' by any stretch - 1/2 of the piece is nothing to do with FF; a thin 1/3 is about his murder and relevant background. The intro is all about Press TV, the new cold war and the percieved bias of the FCO and Met.

-------------------------------------------
From: Strobes
Date: 2008/7/8
Subject: RE: Ratbiter, issue 1213, 27 Jun
To: Tim Wilkinson


Thanks for letter.