Show Me the Money and I’ll Show You the Agenda

By Andrew Cochran
Terrorfinanceblog | April 10, 2007

I’m trying to determine why senior U.S. government officials or Congressmen continue to entrust their precious time to those with an extremist or Islamist agenda when they’re searching for “moderate Muslims” with whom to hold a dialogue. It still happens all too often, even years after the 9-11 attacks (I have another example about which to post soon). And I have to conclude that too many government officials around the world and experts are still trusting what they hear from a foreign leader or long-standing Islamist, instead of watching what they actually do. My golden rule, probably due to my experience as a CPA and consultant, is simple: see how the Islamists and their supporters (or their opponents, for that matter) spend their money, and stop trusting what they say.

Analyses of the Muslim Brotherhood illustrate this point perfectly. Douglas Farah took issue with the Foreign Affairs article by the Nixon Center’s Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood,” starting a mini-debate here and on the Nixon Center site (see Doug’s last post on it). But look at the angle each party takes in their analysis: Leiken and Brooke barely mention how MB leaders spend their money; it’s all about “expressions of confidence that it would honor democratic processes.” Yes, there is some discussion of “a painstaking educational program,” but nothing about the directions for the “big money.” To the contrary, Doug’s method is to follow the money. Everything he writes on MB, from his recent piece on Sudan to his 2006 analysis of the MB’s international financial network, focuses on the cash flow. Lorenzo Vidino explores the financial angle in his April 6 post, “The Muslim Brotherhood in Holland,” discussing how the MB has worked in Europe since World War II. Other articles in the debate break down along this fault line – see Alyssa Lappen’s response to Nick Fielding, in which she cited MB’s financial support for terrorism, while Fielding discounted or ignored such instances.

I recently mentioned to a senior Congressional staffer that “if you show me the money, I’ll show you 80% of the agenda.” He corrected me – “it’s 90%.” And he’s certainly right in the CT world, in the U.S. and abroad. Find out where a group gets it money and where it spends it, and you’ll know the group’s agenda.

All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

The Militarization of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

by Patrick Poole
American Thinker | Feb. 13, 2007

In late October, a series of exchanges here at American Thinker debated the extremism or moderation of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and oldest Islamist organization in the world and the de facto political opposition party in Egypt. Events a few weeks later in Cairo rendered much of that discussion moot.

The exchange was initiated by Alyssa Lappen’s article “Islam’s Useful Idiots”, which challenged the foreign policy realist view that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are political moderates and are committed to political reform in Egypt through peaceful means, notwithstanding their sometime-violent rhetoric and long history of using and supporting terrorism. In particular, Ms. Lappen took issue with statements delivered at a recent forum hosted by the NYU School of Law, where panelists represented the Muslim Brotherhood as “reformist” and “progressive”, and therefore, no threat to democracy in Egypt and a potential partner for peace for the US.

Later that week, Ms. Lappen’s article prompted strong responses from Nick Fielding and Alexis Debat – both of whom were panelists at the NYU forum noted by Lappen. Both accused her of misrepresenting their comments at that forum and reiterated that the Muslim Brotherhood was nothing to fear. In the spirit of fair debate, The American Thinker included detailed responses by Ms. Lappen to Fielding and Debat’s accusations.

In December, however, a militarized parade of Muslim Brotherhood youth cadres demonstrated with sticks, chains and martial arts displays at Cairo’s Al-Ahzar University, the most historic Islamic academic institution and one of the largest universities in the world, effectively putting the lie to contentions that the Muslim Brotherhood intends to pursue its goal of imposing shari’a law and instituting an Islamic government in Egypt through non-violent means (an almost ridiculous proposition on its face). Continue reading “The Militarization of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood” →

Scribblings

Tzvi Fleischer
Australia/Israel Review | November 2006

The Political Horseshoe again

Antony Loewenstein, the anti-Zionist author who constantly pops up in the Australian media to complain about how he is supposedly being silenced by Zionists, rarely seems to miss an opportunity to declare that not only Israel, but anyone who disagrees with him about Israel, is racist.

Interestingly, after being endorsed by the Holocaust-denying Adelaide Institute last year, he has now yet again been coopted by genuine racists from the Australian League of Rights. The League has announced in their magazine On Target (Oct. 27) that they are selling Loewenstein’s My Israel Question from the League Book Service. The book is praised by League president Betty Luks because it “œtakes on the Australian Zionist lobby that … patrols the boundaries of public debate, aiming to silence anyone who occasionally strays from the accepted line.””

In response, Loewenstein predictably ran the same line as last year on his blog (Oct. 16): “A writer cannot prevent extreme groups latching onto his or her message and using it as their own. For my part, I can only categorically dismiss the rantings of groups such as ALOR.” Continue reading “Scribblings” →

The Eurabia Code, Part 2: A Planned Sell-Out by the EU

The Brussels Journal | From the desk of Fjordman | Thu, 2006-10-05 14:33

MEDEA (the European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation), supported by the European Commission, is one of the key components of the Euro-Arab dialogue. On its own webpage, it states that:
———————————————-

“The Euro-Arab Dialogue as a forum shared by the European Community and the League of Arab States arose out of a French initiative and was launched at the European Council in Copenhagen in December 1973, shortly after the “October War” and the oil embargo. As the Europeans saw it, it was to be a forum to discuss economic affairs, whereas the Arab side saw it rather as one to discuss political affairs.

MEDEA Institute wishes to be a resource and a reference point for people wanting to engage in the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue. Via its meetings and talks the Institute seeks to create exchanges between political, economic, and diplomatic players, experts, journalists, academics and others.”

————————————————————
As Bat Ye’or points out, while most of the workings of Eurabia are hidden from the public view, sometimes we can catch glimpses of it if we know what to look for. If you search the archives of the MEDEA website and other sources and read the documents carefully, the information is there. Even more material exists on paper, both in French and in English. I argue, as does Bat Ye’or, that there are sufficient amounts of information available to validate the thesis of Eurabia. Continue reading “The Eurabia Code, Part 2: A Planned Sell-Out by the EU” →

England’s chilling forecast: the case for granting declaratory relief to prevent English default actions from chilling American speech

By Raymond W. Beauchamp
Fordham Law Review | 2006 Vol. 74

Notes:
9: Alyssa A. Lappen, Libel Wars, FrontPagMag.com, July 18, 2005
29: Lappen supra note 9
37: see Lappen supra note 9

Hamas’ Determination to Perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Critical Role of Hate Indoctrination

by Justus Reid Weiner | Noam Weissman
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs | 1 August 2006

Prospects for peace in the Middle East have been dealt an enormous blow by the election triumph of Hamas in January 2006. Palestinian education, television shows, websites, and even families are all being mobilized in an intensified environment of agitated hatred toward Israel and Israelis.
Even prior to the Hamas election victory, anti-Israel rhetoric was already embedded in Palestinian school textbooks and other educational materials, and ideas such as romanticizing martyrdom and “reconquering” the land were taught in the classroom. Bitter hostility towards Israel’s very existence is currently woven into the entire Palestinian educational system.
UNRWA educational institutions are controlled by individuals committed to Hamas ideology and they are educating terrorists. Numerous terrorist operatives and Hamas political leaders have been educated in UNRWA schools.
The idea of martyrdom has become so ingrained in Palestinian culture that it is a major theme in religious practice, television broadcasting, posters, pre-suicide eulogies, summer camps, children’s trading cards, movies, music, and games.Palestinian newspapers report that the number of children who express a willingness to become martyrs exceeds 70 percent. Palestinian psychiatrist Dr. Shafiq Massalha, after finding that over half the Palestinian population aged 6 to 11 dream of becoming suicide bombers, concludes that the next generation of Palestinians will be a very murderous population full of anger and hatred.

The raison d’etre of Hamas – the Islamic Resistance Movement, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the complete annihilation of the State of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in its place. Prospects for peace in the Middle East have been dealt an enormous blow by the election triumph of Hamas in January 2006. Palestinian education, television shows, websites, and even families are all being mobilized in an intensified environment of agitated hatred toward Israel and Israelis. Continue reading “Hamas’ Determination to Perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Critical Role of Hate Indoctrination” →