The Boston Terror Lessons

Arlene from Israel

There is, of course, a lot of nonsense floating about with regard to terrorists Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — such as the claim by his mother that they’re “innocent” and were “framed” by the FBI.

And there is a great deal that is still unknown. It is being broadly assumed, for example, that these guys, who were involved in a shoot-out that left at least one dead are also the terrorists who set off the bombs at the Marathon, and yet I do not believe that this is known with any certainty.

But not only is there a great deal that is still to be exposed in this case, there are undoubtedly facts that will be kept from the public even if and when the authorities discover them. We are not exactly dealing with a nation that is “up-front” about jihad and Islamic threats. Not with the current obsession with political correctness and “Islamophobia” — and a president who has banned allusions to Islam with regard to terror attacks. To this day the Fort Hood massacre has never been identified as the Islamic terrorism that it was.


What is known about these two brothers, Tamerlan, 26, dead and Dzhokhar, 19, in critical condition in the hospital, is that their origins are Chechan — Chechnya Republic being a mostly Sunni Muslim region in the southern part of Russia, in the Caucasus, that has battled for independence and has a history of terrorism and violence associated with its separatist movement.

The brothers received early schooling in neighboring Dagestan, which, as the JPost describes it, “was drawn into Chechnya’s violence and has since become the focal point for a simmering Islamist insurgency.”

It is, however, roughly ten years since the family moved from Dagestan to Cambridge MA.

There was some speculation at the beginning about the brothers having visited Chechnya a year ago and perhaps having gone to Afghanistan or Pakistan — places where, reportedly, many Chechans go — and receiving radical terrorist or military training in one of these places. But I’m not seeing confirmation of this speculation, and it is now being said that the two likely acted on their own.


So, what the hell was going on, that motivated these two brothers to act as they allegedly did? Why, it is being asked, did they bring the Chechnya liberation battle to the US?

The answer to this is the “ikar” — the very heart of what must be understood now by America: It has nothing to do with Chechnya. There is a generation of home-grown radicals in the US that has been highly motivated to violence by the Internet. Muslims themselves, they are heavily influenced by Muslim terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, but do not act directly as agents of these groups.

See, first, this April 20 Agence France article carried by IMRA, which says the following (emphasis added):

“The two brothers suspected of the Boston bombings, Chechens who grew up in America, fit the profile of a new generation of jihadists who are radicalized online and strike in their home countries.

“Despite the many unknowns, analysts said the brothers’ turn to extremism seemed to have been stoked, not by the years of unrest in their native North Caucasus region of Russia, but on the Internet.

“‘The Chechnya issue is less relevant than the radicalization process,’ said Seth Jones, associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, a Washington think tank.

“‘It seems the issue here is less that they conducted training in camps or not and radicalized in Chechnya, and more that they were involved in a social media radicalization,’ he said.

“…Bayram Balci, a Caucasus region specialist at the Carnegie Endowment think tank in Washington, said the uprooting of young people at an early age can make them more vulnerable to being radicalized in later years.

“…Fiona Hill, a Caucasus specialist at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the conflict in Chechnya is used as a recruiting tool for al-Qaida.

“‘Videos from Chechnya are all over the Internet. They’re constantly packaged as part of the al-Qaida network recruitment,’ she said.

“Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University, said there were many examples of people wanting to fight for al-Qaida in their own country.

“…The bombs used in Boston, pressure cookers filled with explosives, reflect the methods advocated by Inspire, the English language magazine published by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the movement’s Yemeni offshoot, which has also urged aspiring jihadists to launch attacks in their own countries.

“Brian Jenkins, author of a Rand study on the profile of jihadists in the United States, said 74 percent of those involved in such plots were American citizens…

“Many of the jihadists identified…began their journey toward radicalization on the Internet where they found resonance and reinforcement for their frustration and anger…”



For the record, in case any of you missed it, there has been a host of articles about the association of Tamerlan with radical websites and radical statements by him on social network sites.

Washington DC-based anti-terrorist Steve Emerson had a good deal of information on this up on his website by last Friday.



In her piece, “All Terrorism is Connected,” Shoshana Bryen, director of the Jewish Policy Center, further connects the dots.

“There is a temptation with each act of terror to see it as isolated, connected to the mental state of the actor, but not to larger forces. The FBI used to have theories about ‘Sudden Jihad Syndrome’ and ‘Lone Wolves’ that were not only wrong, but also pulled law enforcement off the track.
“‘Sudden Jihad Syndrome’ was invented by the FBI to explain why people who lived quietly in the United States for some period of time ‘suddenly’ went berserk and killed others.”

Writes Bryen, “There is no unconnected terrorism.”:

She cites specific factors that appear to move some people — primarily young men — to radical, violent activity. Among these she mentions Salafist ideology that combines Islam with a determination to solve problems through violence, and “inspiration” provided by al-Qaeda.

Bryen, of course, mentions the influence of the Internet, which she sees as “an enabler, providing an anonymous virtual meeting place. Sites other than mosques can provide the sense of community otherwise isolated people may be seeking.”

She also shares with us the fact that:

“For the unremarkable conclusion that professional jihadists use the Internet to find susceptible people with self-identity problems seeking causes, and that even those people often drop out of the process at several points, the NYPD was called ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic.'”


And thus, at one and the same time, Bryen identifies America’s current very problematic proclivity towards avoiding hard truths, and what may well be the route taken by the Tsarnaev brothers.

It comes together neatly: I cited Bayram Balci, above, as saying that people uprooted at an early age are more susceptible to radicalism later. And here Bryen speaks about people with self-identity problems being courted by professional jihadists on the Internet.

It has been widely publicized that on a social media network said Tamerlan said he had no American friends: “I don’t understand them.” This, after years in the country.


Dr. Michael Widlanski, in “Terror Never Left America’s Shores,” examines the fallacious thinking and dangerous policies of the Obama administration with regard to terrorism. Americans ignore this at their own risk. Widlanski says (emphasis added):

“Terror did not return to America at the Boston Marathon, because terror never left.

“There have been more anti-US attacks and abortive attacks (not including Iraq and Afghanistan) in the last four years than in the previous seven years after 9-11.

“This is not a statistic that is widely cited at government briefings, in the main news media nor on most college campuses, because [the US] government, media and educational elites would like to pretend that the terror problem ended with Osama Bin-Laden.

“‘People shouldn’t jump to conclusions before we have all the facts,’ asserted President Barack Obama, but he and his top aides have spent the better part of the last two years on a mistaken conclusion.

“They have pretended that there really was no terror problem, but only an Al-Qaeda problem, and that that problem was solved because, they said, Bin-Laden’s death was a death blow for terror.

“They were wrong then, and they are wrong now, dead wrong. Terrorists often send us reminders just when we think we have beaten them.

“…There is no substitute for the tough and painstaking collection of intelligence and grinding work on the ground.

“President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and other officials in the Obama Administration have done their best to inhibit the collection of such intelligence, while they have at the same time launched probes or proceedings aimed at counter-terror warriors in the CIA and the top units of the US military.

“America was kept safe by some of that same intelligence that was gathered earlier, including massive planned attacks on Los Angeles and London. Some of that same data gathered in interrogations also led to Osama Bin-Laden himself. Yet, those efforts have ended, and American intelligence has been coasting on previous efforts.

“Meanwhile, Obama and his crew pushed the idea that America should worry more about hate crimes against Muslims and Arabs than terror by Muslims and Arabs.

“Simply put, FBI crime statistics from the last eight years show that this idea is nonsense. America does not have a problem of hate crimes against Muslims.

“…The first step in fighting terror is to realize that there is a terror problem that requires a major national effort, but some of our top “experts” on terror—especially in the Obama Administration—treat terrorists like they were business rivals.



There is a great deal of information that has yet to be acquired concerning what happened in Boston. But it’s not too soon to ask some hard questions about what America’s top policy-makers have learned — are OPEN to learning — with regard to terrorism.

The beginning comes with naming the enemy. Islam — or jihadist radical Islam — is at the center of the terrorist problem. To say so is not prejudicial — it is a simple statement of fact.

Then it is necessary to take a hard look at how potential terror threats are monitored and responded to. As Widlanski makes clear, the best of intelligence must be gathered. And those who are fighting the good fight must be supported in their efforts, not undercut in the name of political correctness.

There are a host of hard questions to be asked regarding the fact that the FBI had information on these guys and yet missed the boat somehow with regard to comprehending their potential danger.

Already law makers are asking some hard questions in this regard.

“‘If he was on their radar and they let him go…why wasn’t a flag put on him?’ Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said on CNN…”

“…’The ball was dropped,’ said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) also on CNN. ‘The FBI missed a lot of things…There was a lot to be learned from this guy. We’re at war with radical Islamists and we need to up our game.'”



I close here with a link to an extremely serious analysis by Clare Lopez of the “History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government”:

“Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to ‘destroy the Western civilization from within,’ and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.

“…This report describes how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated and suborned the U.S. government to actively assist, whether knowingly or not, the mission of its grand jihad. Its hard-won position at the forefront of the 21st century Islamic Awakening is possible only because of decades of patient infiltration and political indoctrination (Da’wa) in the West, and especially the United States of America, even as the grassroots work of building an organizational structure advanced steadily in the land of its origin as well. It is important to recognize the sophistication of the Brotherhood’s international strategy and how the takedown of U.S. national security defenses from within was critical to the current Middle East-North Africa (MENA) campaign to re-establish the Caliphate and enforce Islamic Law (shariah).”

Lopez names names of those with close Muslim Brotherhood affiliation who have penetrated the US government:

Rashad Hussain…”the Obama administration’s envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).”

Muhammed Magid…”an A-list invitee to White House iftar dinners, and a member of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Advisory Council. In that capacity, Magid participated in a July 2012 CIA training session…”

Huma Abedin…who was “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, has served her in various capacities since first coming to the White House as an intern in 1996…For decades, she and members of her immediate family — mother, father, brother, and sister — have been closely associated with individuals among the top ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qa’eda financial support organizations, and the Saudi royal family.”

She then concludes:

“As we can see, as early as the George W. Bush administration period, the Muslim Brotherhood already had achieved an information dominance that, in coming years, would only intensify. Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policymaking, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin’s) were actively excluded. That information dominance has contributed to startling consequences, most evident in the U.S. policy towards the al-Qa’eda and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated revolutions that many call the “Arab Spring,” but which in fact are more accurately termed an “Islamic Awakening.” Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements — from al-Qa’eda militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qa’eda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American any more.

“…Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to ‘destroy the Western civilization from within,’ and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.”



The Washington Post Now Fully On Board with Gosnell Trial

By: Bethany Stotts
Accuracy in Media

The Washington Post has performed an about face in its coverage of the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Where once there was no media coverage of the story, because it was “local” news, now The Washington Post is replete with articles covering the trial from multiple angles.

While the Post’s Martin Baron should be congratulated on deciding to cover the story in depth—he’s planning on sending a dedicated reporter—it took reader criticism to prompt the paper to do so. As this correspondent earlier outlined, the Post’s Sarah Kliff tweeted to Mollie Hemingway of Patheos.com that the story was “local crime” and that she focuses on policy, and therefore would not cover it.

Clearly, a story where an abortion clinic goes uninspected for decades and performs illegal, botched third trimester abortions resulting in the murder of viable babies has some policy implications. After all, how could this happen in America? And for decades? Dr. Gosnell routinely snipped the spines of babies which were born alive during his procedures, according to the grand jury.

“Martin Baron, The Post’s executive editor, offers a more mundane rationale for the newspaper’s lack of coverage: He wasn’t aware of the story until Thursday night, when readers began e-mailing him about it,” reported the Washington Post on April 14. “I wish I could be conscious of all stories everywhere, but I can’t be,” he said. “Nor can any of us.” The question is, did some of those reader emails include comments about Kliff’s tweet to Hemingway, which was made on April 11?

Kliff has since apologized for her comments, writing, “When I described the case of abortion provider Kermit Gosnell on Twitter last week as a local crime story, I was clearly wrong. The egregious and horrifying crimes committed in the physician’s West Philadelphia abortion clinic have become a matter of national attention.”

The Post’s coverage of the Gosnell trial as of this writing includes the original column explaining why it had not picked up the story, Associated Press coverage of the trial, a second-hand use of Philadelphia reporting, Kliff’s descriptive piece, an article covering Obama’s non-opinion of the case, a conservative column, and a policy piece by Juliet Eilperin, among others. Clearly, the paper is trying to let its readers know that it is now on the ball and covering the scandal. “The Post ran a full AP report on it in Saturday’s editions; the paper has also assigned its own reporter to cover the trial in Philadelphia this week,” reported the Post on April 14.

“Ultimately, the conspiracy of silence on Gosnell lies not with the press,” asserts Jonathan Capehart on April 16. Instead, “It lies with the workers at the clinic who allegedly participated in barbarous acts or allegedly watched them happen and said nothing. It lies with members of the community who knew about the alleged deplorable activity and conditions at ‘Women’s Medical Society’ and said nothing. And it lies with Philadelphia and Pennsylvania officials who fielded numerous credible complaints about Gosnell and did nothing.”

But, until a few days ago, not that many people were being told about these abuses. Media coverage clearly makes a difference, in this case.

“It’s too early to tell how the attention around Gosnell, who is now standing trial for the deaths of one woman and seven infants, will affect elected officials as they consider an array of new restrictions on abortion providers,” writes Juliet Eilperin on April 15 for the Post. “But the shocking nature of Gosnell’s alleged crimes has provided abortion opponents with new ammunition as they seek to impose new regulations on abortion clinics across the country.”

“At this point 29 states regulate abortion clinics in some way, according to Americans United for Life,” writes Eilperin. “This year 17 states are considering measures to regulate both the facilities and individuals performing abortions, though these proposals vary widely.” Could this have something to do with the original media blackout?

“We never decide what to cover for ideological reasons, no matter what critics might claim,” said Baron on the 14th. “Accusations of ideological motives are easy to make, even if they’re not supported by the facts.”

The Washington Post insists on covering the story as one of regulation, not policy. “What Gosnell was doing violated current law—rather than the stricter ones states are now contemplating—and the problem is state officials didn’t bother to inspect his facility,” writes Juliet Eilperin in her article, “Will Kermit Gosnell change the abortion debate?” “Even [Kristi] Hamrick [spokeswoman for AUL] noted that new restrictions are meaningless without rigorous enforcement,” she writes.

So how did this come to pass, in an era of legal abortions? James Taranto, a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, argues in an April 18th article that “back-alley abortions never ended,” even after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. He wrote that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, starting after his election in 1994, “did away with all regular inspections of abortion clinics.” He said that Ridge’s successor, Democrat Ed Rendell, “resumed the inspections only after the 2010 raid.”

The reason, according to Taranto, citing the grand jury report: Ridge’s administration “concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased.” This, even though, as the grand jury reported, “Gosnell was known as a doctor who would perform abortions at any stage, without regard for legal limits.”

The prosecution is seeking the death penalty for Gosnell, while eight of his former staffers have already pled guilty to various charges. “The grand jury’s report should also be seen as an indictment of America’s post-Roe abortion industry,” wrote Taranto. “Its indifference—at best—to legal limits made possible the deaths of untold numbers of babies, lending credence to the argument that legal abortion is a slippery slope to infanticide.”

“Meanwhile,” he concludes, “the claim that Roe v. Wade made America safe from back-alley abortion stands exposed as a cruel hoax, and a deadly one for women and children alike.”

Bethany Stotts is a freelance writer and former staff writer for Accuracy in Academia. She blogs at http://bethanystotts.wordpress.com/.


NewYork’s Socialist Politicians 1: Richard Gottfried

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

New York State is awash with socialist and Marxist politicians. The New York legislature and the NYC City Council is full of pro-communist and socialist elected officials, mostly Democrats, who do their level best to keep the state deep blue and retard social and economic progress at every opportunity.

Dick Gottfried

Dick Gottfried

One of the most obvious is Richard Gottfried, who represents Assembly District 75, covering Chelsea, Clinton, Murray Hill, Midtown and part of the Lincoln Center area in Manhattan.

Gottried is a graduate of Stuyvesant High School, Cornell University (BA, 1968) and Columbia Law School (JD, 1973). He is a lawyer, but does not maintain a private practice. He works full time as a legislator, and in my opinion, as a Communist Party USA supporter.

Gottfied is responsible for a raft of socialist legislation, mainly in the health area, but he was also behind the Gender Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity (transgender); and the bill to legalize the use of medical marijuana.

He previously served as Deputy Majority Leader; Assistant Majority Leader; Chair of the Assembly Committees on Codes (covering the criminal justice system), and Children and Families; and Chair of the Assembly task forces on the Homeless, Campaign Finance Reform, and Crime Victims.

Gottfried’s ties to the Communist Party go at least back to his High School days, when he did a term paper on the history of the Communist Party paper, the Daily Worker, for a journalism class. He came to the Party office in New York to do research, where he was introduced to then party leader, the legendary Gus Hall.

On May 7, 1994, the New York State Communist Party held a fundraising banquet to honor three Party activists: Ted Bassett, Rose Kryzak and Mary Gale.

New York District Chair John Bachtell MC’d the event. Party leader Gus Hall was Keynote speaker while Maria Ramos introduced the honorees. Dorothy Burnham reminisced about her work with Bassett. Etta Glaser spoke of helping to organize the 1963 March on Washington with Ted Bassett.

Kryzak became a Party organizer in 1940. Esther Brall, who worked with Kryzak for years, recalled her work as Chair of the New York Committee to Aid the Families of Smith Act Victims.

Richard Gottfried, Chairman of the New York Assembly Committee on Health sent a letter congratulating Gale and Kryzak on their “many years of tireless effort” they had given to “the fight for peace and social justice… Your energy, spirit, commitment and cheer” had spurred “countless others in many struggles and helped win important victories.”

On May 31, 1998, the People’s Weekly World held a Paul Robeson birth centennial celebration in New York at the Henry Winston Auditorium.

Attendees included:

  • Judith LeBlanc, Communist Party
  • Gus Hall, who talked of meeting Robeson annually to collect his dues and renew his party membership
  • John Bachtell, Chairman of the New York district of the Party

Richard Gottfried presented a resolution from the New York State assembly honoring Robeson. Democrat David Paterson introduced the resolution in the State Senate. Republican John Marchi and Democrats Richard Gottfried and Roger Green, introduced it in the State Assembly.

On November 4, 1999, Gottfried presented State Assembly citations to four honorees: Iris Baez, Ron Daniels, Elizabeth Hall and Bobbie Rabinowitz, at the People’s Weekly World 75th anniversary celebrations at the Party’s Henry Winston Unity Auditorium in New York.

Said Gottfried:

What means so much about the PWW is there are an awful lot of people who ought to understand more than they do about the struggle we are involved in.They don’t understand the fight against corporate power and the fight for the people is the same fight, whether you talk about education, housing, or healthcare.”

On October 22, 2000, the People’s Weekly World held its 4th annual celebration luncheon in New York at the Henry Winston Auditorium.

Awardees were:

Ernesto Jofre, President of UNITE Local 169
International Longshoreman’s Association, Local 1814
Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence

Speakers included City Council members Bill Perkins and Christine Quinn, Assembly member Richard Gottfried, State Senator Tom Duane, Larry Moskowitz of the Communist Party and Working Families Party and Elena Mora for the Communist Party.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel sent greetings and State Senator Eric Schneiderman sent a letter of commendation to the honorees.

Richard Gottfried made a personal endorsement of the People’s World, June 2, 2007, on page 2 of the publication.


On March 23, 2007, “people jammed in to sit on folding chairs or stand shoulder-to-shoulder and listen to speakers tell of the Party’s contributions to American labor and democratic rights.” The crowd studied display cases full of photos, buttons, leaflets and letters from the 2,000 boxes of archives donated by the Communist Party to New York University’s Tamiment Library, which specializes in left and labor history.

The presence of dozens of party and Young Communist League members in the crowd indicated that the Communist Party continues to be an important and growing part of the American political scene.

Speakers included: Committees of Correspondence leader Leslie Cagan, Rutgers University professor and Party member Norman Markowitz, New York State Sen. Bill Perkins, Communist Party Executive Vice Chair Jarvis Tyner, University of Houston professor and Party supporter Gerald Horne, People’s World Editor Teresa Albano and Richard Gottfried – who spoke humorously of representing a district that includes Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood where the Communist Party has its offices.

“Is Estelle Katz here?” Gottfried asked, looking for the well-known Chelsea retiree and Communist “peace” activist. “My district may be the most unique in the nation where the ‘red-baitees’ out-number the ‘red-baiters.’”

When Katz, a member of both the Communist Party and the Chelsea Reform Democratic Club, died in November 2012, fellow club member Gottfried said this of her:

“Estelle Katz worked with the confidence of someone who fervently believed there is a strong current in history towards social justice,”… “She once said to me, ‘If you’re a Marxist, you can never be a pessimist.’ It was inspiring to have her among my constituents. I miss her.

This information has been brought to you by KeyWiki, a New Zealand hosted, online encyclopedia of the U.S. left.

If you want to get more of this information to the public please contribute today.


Trevor Loudon is the author of “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within,” an oft referenced work that blew the lid off the President’s extensive Marxist background. He is also the Editor of this blog TrevorLoudon.com and of KeyWiki.org, an online encyclopedia exposing the covert side of U.S. politics.


Shi’a Cleric Sentenced To Death For Blasphemy In Saudi Arabia – Sign The Petition Calling For The Immediate Release Of Ayatollah Nimr Baqr al-Nimr

By: Aeneas Lavinium

Ayatollah Nimr Baqr al-Nimr has been sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia, the desert kingdom that is a key ally of the Western elite. This case clearly shows that blasphemy laws are tools of religious oppression and should be opposed globally.

However, initiatives such as UNHRC Resolution 16/18 does the opposite and helps to facilitate the spread of the blasphemy mentality. Though this resolution purports to be a tool to oppose religious persecution, it is really the ‘Defamation of Religions’ idea placed in more attractive packaging. Many member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is behind this resolution, are the very ones that persecute religious minorities. Why would they propose a resolution to end something globally that they have not even bothered to end in their own territories and which they seem to practice with such glee?

Blasphemy laws are the Saudi Arabian equivalent of political correctness. This comparison is not made to justify them, but to show how ridiculous they are. But like political correctness, they are designed to stifle political debate and make political leaders less accountable for their policies. In Saudi Arabia, blasphemy is a tool to terrorize ordinary people. Unlike in Saudi Arabia, our leaders have not yet made a lack of adherence to political correctness a capital crime. Their cozy friendship with the Saudi regime, however, is a source of great worry.

Blasphemy laws are instruments of religious persecution, as the case of Ayatollah Nimr Baqr al-Nimr clearly illustrates. They can be used to settle scores, to attack political enemies or to bring down business rivals. Indeed, it seems that much of the motivation for the arrest of Ayatollah Nimr Baqr al-Nimr was to stop his political and human rights activities.

Human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia must stop completely. This will not happen if the West continues to support Saudi Arabia. It will not happen if Western leaders are successful in implementing their own secular version of blasphemy laws. It will not happen if they continue to support OIC inspired initiatives such as UNHRC Resolution 16/18 and other variations of the ‘Defamation of Religions’ concept. The treatment of Ayatollah Nimr Baqr al-Nimr by the Saudi regime is but one human rights abuse amongst many in that country. However, it is important to focus on the one, on the individual, in order to bring greater freedom to the many.

***Sign the petition calling for the immediate release of Ayatollah Nimr Baqr al-Nimr***

Click the link above to see the petition which is on Change.org

The following is the wording that I included when I signed the petition myself:

“The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working in the UN to make blasphemy an offense globally. Western Governments need to stop colluding with the OIC to actively oppose the spread of tyrannical blasphemy laws. This case shows how blasphemy laws can be used to stifle political debate and halt social progress. Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr should be released immediately.”

Chris Knowles

Hat tip to People of Shambhala for highlighting this case.