UK: Jihadists as "Charity Workers"
The full truth is a bit more chilling, Sharif and his wife are supporters of ISIS, the leading Al-Qaeda-aligned group in Syria. Al Jazeera reports that in areas under ISIS control, "men [have]... been beheaded, their heads mounted on spikes. Children...slaughtered." Other posts found on the couple's Facebook pages include videos glorifying jihadi fighters; praise for late Al Qaeda leaders such as Abdullah Azzam and Anwar Al-Awlaki; and calls for an Islamic state.
The British media continues to label British Islamist volunteers who support jihadist movements in Syria as "charity workers."
In December, the BBC aired a documentary about aid convoys to Syria, but – as reported by Gatestone Institute – neglected to inform viewers of the convoy volunteers' support for jihadi "martyrs," Al Qaeda operatives and extremist preachers.
Although the UK Charity Commission subsequently started an investigation into these charities, the failure of the media to research their interviewees continues to impair efforts to tackle the abuse of British taxpayers' charitable initiatives.
On April 1, Britain's Channel 4 aired an interview with two "charity workers" in Syria – Tauqir Sharif and his wife, Racquell Hayden-Best. Sharif and his wife work with a number of different charities involved with "aid convoys" to Syria, including One Nation, which is also presently funding a Hamas-run charity in Gaza.
Channel 4 did provide a little bit of background, noting that Sharif has:
...a long history of activism – he was one of those aboard the Gaza aid flotilla which was raided by Israeli forces in 2010. He has campaigned to raise awareness about Syria and met the former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg when Mr Begg visited Syria last year. They were due to speak at a live online "webinar" event about the conflict, but it was cancelled after Mr Begg was arrested and charged with Syria-related offences.
The full truth is a bit more chilling: Sharif and his wife are supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), the leading Al Qaeda-aligned group in Syria. ISIS evolved from a group called Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was known for "its butchery and oppression, which included killing Sunni and Shiite civilians with spectacular suicide attacks, bombing Shiite mosques, uploading videos of beheadings on jihadist forums, and forcing local Sunnis to abide by its interpretation of Islamic law."
ISIS is at least as violent as its predecessor. Al Jazeera reports that in areas under ISIS control, "men [have]...been beheaded, their heads mounted on spikes. Children...slaughtered."
Unlike its predecessor, however, ISIS has supplemented its violence with dawa'h programs – a system of social provision, or "soft-power outreach" – in areas under its control. A key component of this dawa'h, the Hudson Institute reports, is providing educational outreach initiatives "as part of its wider strategy to foster a new generation of Syrians in support of its ideological agenda. ... ISIS runs a number of schools in areas where it has consolidated its presence... [and] offers other services to complement their educational outreach, such as their school-bus services in the Aleppo town of al-Bab."
Sharif and his wife appear to be part of this dawa'h effort. As Channel 4 reported, the couple "work with a number of different charities, including a project to build an Islamic school for women and children." Channel 4 failed to report, however, that the logo of the school project, named the Akhwaat Ash Shaam [Sisters of Syria], is the flag of ISIS.
Other Facebook pages established and managed by the couple also prominently display ISIS flags.
Posts found on the couple's Facebook pages include: videos glorifying jihadi fighters; praise for late Al Qaeda leaders such as Abdullah Azzam and Anwar Al-Awlaki; a number of statements denouncing "Yahoodi" [Jewish] oppression of Muslims; openly anti-Semitic posters; and calls for an Islamic state.
Although Channel 4 broadcast the footage of Sharif and his wife, it was Bilal Abdul-Kareem, an "American Muslim activist living in Syria," who filmed the interview itself. In 2009, it was reported that Abdul-Kareem defended the killing spree carried out by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, at Fort Hood in Texas, as an act against an enemy in a state of war.
The British Charity Commission is already struggling to keep track of charities that are moving money and people into Syria. Tackling the possible misuse of charitable initiatives for anti-democratic ideological purposes is made harder if the media continues to portray extremists as champions fighting against all odds.
Reader comments on this item
|Beware of the jihadists [18 words]||Ezrom||Apr 20, 2014 14:13|
|So What Else is New...? [74 words]||Uriahh||Apr 10, 2014 17:23|
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Where Turkey stands today is a perfect example of how, when Islamists -- mild or otherwise -- rule a county, even the most basic liberties are systematically suppressed.
"A climate of fear has emerged in Turkey." — Hasam Kilic, President, Turkey's Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor demanded a heavier penalty for the victim than for her torturers.
The European Commission identified government interference in the judiciary and bans imposed on social media as the major sources of concern regarding Turkey's candidacy for full membership.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."