Watch "The Third Jihad" for Free!

[Mike Renzulli]

To commemorate the 10th anniversary of September 11th, The Clarion Fund which financed the making of the film has made it available for free to watch online for a limited time.

The Salafis are supported directly by the Saudi monarchy in which this movement in Islam has been the pet of the House of Saud since the 17th century when the Saudi chief took ibn Al-Wahhab under his wing after being introduced to the king by the Saudi king's sons.

The reality is that 9/11 happened because of terrorists inspired by the ideology outlined in this movie and was not the result of U.S. foreign policy. You need look no further than the terrorist's main backer Osama bin-Laden who was a devout Salafist/Wahhabi and had declared war on the U.S. in the late 1990's and shortly thereafter followed through stating it was legitimate to kill Americans.

My Objectivist club hosted a viewing of this movie and the reactions we got from the audience ranged from surprise, shock, if not outright anger.

Those of you wondering and (dare I say) in denial about the threat of radical Islam should give this movie a look. The Third Jihad lays out how and why the Islamism being perpetuated by countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are a threat to the United States and Western civilization.

http://www.thethirdj...om/10-year-911/

Edited September 14, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

One other thing, the film's point about oil being the enabler of terrorism is wrong but the rest of the information is solid.

[Mark]

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision For America is "a documentary film detailing the rise of radical Islam within the United States."

It’s produced by the Clarion Fund, the same outfit that produced Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.

The following is from Presidential Elections – Ayn Rand and the "Ayn Rand Institute"

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

... the video Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, produced and distributed (some 28 million copies before the 2004 election, most given away free) [was produced] by The Clarion Fund, in turn associated with Aish HaTorah, an Israeli organization.

The video features among its pundits two Christian Zionists: Walid Shoebat, member of Christians United for Israel (an apocalyptic End Times organization), and Nonie Darwish, a Messianic Evangelist, though neither relation is mentioned in the video.

Also featured is Caroline Glick, an Israeli journalist for the Jerusalem Post (according to her website she "made aliyah" in 1991) who elsewhere has praised Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel. Fine company for Daniel Pipes, also featured.

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

Among those interviewed in The Third Jihad:

Joseph Lieberman

, political hack

.

Walid Phares,

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

.

Rudy Giuliani, political hack.

Clare Lopez

,

Center for Security Policy

and the

Clarion Fund

.

From the video’s website:

"A wake-up call for America." – Rudy Giuliani.

We should wake up to the fact that America is being propagandized by a well-financed collection of Zionist and Neoconservative think-tanks.

In order to watch The Third Jihad free of charge you’re required to give an email address. At this point I’ll let it pass, but don't expect the video to conclude any of the following:

• End Third World immigration, both legal and illegal.
  
• Severely restrict visitors from the Third World, including Israel.
  
• Repeal the Immigration Reform Act 1965.
  
• End the anchor baby nonsense whereby babies born of illegal immigrants are given automatic citizenship.
  
• Amend the Constitution so legal immigrants convicted of a felony are stripped of their citizenship and, after serving their sentence, deported.
  

I suspect the video’s theme or subtext is regime change in Iran, per usual with Zionists and Neocons.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Mark

[anthony]

"I suspect the video's theme is regime change in Iran, per usual with Zionists and Neocons."

(Mark)

Yes? Well, bring it on, baby! That's not so bad.

Is that your worst indictment of the video?

I see you let nothing get past you in digging up the shadowy sources behind this.

So a couple of "Christian Zionists" and one Jewish journalist constitute a Zionist-neocon conspiracy?

However, I'd remind you that essentially there are no Zionists any more. Since they achieved their self-determination in a sovereign Jewish homeland - their work ended. "Zionists", in the sense you use it, is null and void - and rather derogatory..

(Unless there is an Israeli plot to conquer Jordan,or Egypt, say, for a bit more living room. With those dastardly Zionists, who knows?)

Though the danger of the real Jihadists is sobering, I was a little underwhelmed by the video for pushing the conspiracist/alarmist buttons too firmly; and I feel the same way about the mixed bag of backers you've exposed, for the same reason.

Tony

[Mike Renzulli]

I just entered the email address "nospam@nospam.com" and was able to watch the movie without having to give my actual one. I did not see anything that lead me to conclude it purported some kind of conspiracy but it did lay out some very important facts. I liked the fact that the film pointed out the Saudi's support of the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood's spearheading the creation of groups like CAIR and the Muslim Students Association along with the Ikhwan's document uncovered in 1991 that outlines their plan to conduct stealth jihad in the U.S.

I am glad The Third Jihad touched on Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and why it would be disastrous for the regime to obtain them. If you want a more detailed look at why Iran must be prevented from getting nukes Iranium does a good job of looking at this.

One vital point I was disappointed was left out was the link between radical Islam and Hitler via the Grand Mufti of Palestine. The Mufti's admiration and assistance to Germany's war efforts against the allies and how it contributed to the spread anti-Semitism in the region and radicalization of Muslims.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Mark]

My objection to the movie is that given its source, you cannot trust anything it states as a fact.

The deeper you look into the Clarion Fund the worse it gets. It produced another documentary video, Iranium, which again features a raft of neocons, Iranian expatriates, and Israelis.

Among the neocons are Frank Gaffney and Michael Ledeen, the latter a total fruitcake arguably worse than John Hagee in Obsession. Among the expatriots is Manda Zand-Ervin (also in Third Jihad), who once held ministerial "positions" (quoting all Clarion says about them) in the dictatorship/monarchy of the Shah and now presents herself as an advocate of human rights. Among the Israelis is Dore Gold, former adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu.

　

If Mike Renzulli wants to convince reasonable men that the U.S. should Iraq Iran he need to find a better source of information than an Israeli propaganda mill.

[Mikee]

My objection to the movie is that given its source, you cannot trust anything it states as a fact.

This is pure evasion. Facts are facts. It is only necessary to establish whether the facts are correct or not.

[Mark]

Point out Ledeen and get bromides in return.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Mark

[Mikee]

You are insane.

[Mike Renzulli]

Mark, you would have more credibility if you actually watched the movie and had not spoken without knowing what you are talking about. You also should know that people like Dr. Zudhi Jasser (who is a devout Muslim), ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Islamic scholar and author Dr. Bernard Lewis are also interviewed in the film. Lewis is also interviewed quite a few times in Iranium as well. He is interviewed more times in both movies than the people you complained about in your original post.

Despite the ideological bent of the people you reel against did it ever occur to you that they may actually be right? Are you really that blind that you will cast aside any objectivity all in the name of holding on to your preconceived notions about U.S. foreign policy at whatever cost despite the fact that the facts may contradict your original conclusions? If so, Mikee is right. You are insane.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[merjet]

My objection to the movie is that given its source, you cannot trust anything it states as a fact.

Are you equally distrustful of, and as eager to impugn, any source on the other side of the dispute?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Merlin Jetton

[Mike Renzulli]

If you would like to watch Iranium I it can still be viewed for free at Hulu.

[Mark]

The Clarion Fund promotes a number of intellectuals and government agents. Practically all of them have a history of lying, in particular many of them lied the Bush administration into invading Iraq.

Frequently both intellectual and government agent are found in the same person: Michael Ledeen, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, etc.

In case you’ve forgotten, so far the Iraq War has killed and maimed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The total cost of the war in taxes and/or inflation is over a trillion dollars and counting.

And we’re supposed to believe the liars who caused all this, again?

Only the supremely gullible would listen to them a second time. Only the dishonest or benighted would promote these creeps.

They might say something true, but if it is true then Mikee and Mike should try to find independent, reputable men who present the case for it instead of an Israel-worshipping outfit like the Clarion Fund.

[Mark]

The Iranium documentary is more of the same propaganda as Obsession (that’s the one featuring evangelical nutballs, something Clarion’s OL defenders have so far ignored) and Third Jihad. Among those featured in Iranium:

Michael Ledeen – Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, past member of American Enterprise Institute.

Frank Gaffney – Center for Security Policy, Project for the New American Century

John Bolton – American Enterprise Institute, past member of Project for the New American Century (past member of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Project for the New American Century)

Amir Fakhravar – Central Council of Iranian Freedom Movement (or the Iran Enterprise Institute, or the Iranian Freedom Institute) analogous to Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.

Reuel Marc Gerecht – Foundation for Defense of Democracies, past member of the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century.

Jon Kyl – U.S. senator, former chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Clare Lopez – Center for Security Policy, Clarion Fund

Clifford May – Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Walid Phares – Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Harold Rhode – Hudson Institute, Clarion Fund

Henry Sokolski – Heritage Foundation and Hoover Institution.

Kenneth Timmerman – Foundation for Democracy in Iran, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Frances Townsend – former Homeland Security Advisor. Supports the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK).

James Woolsey – Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Center for Security Policy. Director Central Intelligence during the Clinton administration.

Manda Zand-Ervin – Once held "positions" (all that Clarion says of them) in the Shah of Iran’s dictatorship. Fled Iran after the revolution, now bills herself as a human rights activist.

Mark Dubowitz – Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Once a featured speaker at an event of the Christians United for Israel, the evangelical group founded by John Hagee. According to its website "Pastor Hagee has been presented the ZOA [Zionist Organization of America] Israel Award, the ZOA Service Award and the Humanitarian of the Year Award by B’Nai B’Rith Council in recognition of his unwavering support of Israel."

Dore Gold – Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, former adviser to Israel prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

[merjet]

My objection to the movie is that given its source, you cannot trust anything it states as a fact.

Are you equally distrustful of, and as eager to impugn, any source on the other side of the dispute?

Posts #13 and #14 pretty much answer that question.

[Selene]

More grist for both mills...

A subway station billboard war is the latest flareup in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The dispute began with posters urging an end to

U.S. military

aid for

Israel

, prompting a City Council member to demand an end to the ads - and spawning an upcoming series of counter-ads.

"This is a highly political campaign with a controversial underlying anti-Israel message,"

Councilman Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn)

wrote

MTA President Thomas Prendergast

.

"I would urge you to disallow and/or remove these advertisements."

The group behind the ads, the

Westchester County

-based

WESPAC Foundation

, said the subway spots are intended to encourage dialogue and not dissension.

"If the councilman thinks they're anti-Israeli, he should say why," said

Felice Gelman

, a member of the group. "I have family in Israel. They deserve peace. And

U.S.

policies are not helping."

Read more: http://www.nydailyne...l#ixzz1Y852Ah2B

Edited September 16, 2011 by Selene

[Mark]

Unless the Clarion Fund is producing some of the New York MTA counter ads Selene's post is irrelevant to this thread.

Merlin is not just pretty much avoiding my point, he's all the way avoiding my point.

The Neocons gave a banquet and everyone got sick from food poisoning. Now they invite you to another banquet. If you value your health you might choose to eat somewhere else.

Mark

www.ARIwatch.com

[merjet]

Merlin is not just pretty much avoiding my point, he's all the way avoiding my point.

The pot calls the kettle black.

[Selene]

Edited September 16, 2011 by Selene

[Mark]

Correction to my post #6: The Obbession video did not feature John Hagee, it featured Nonie Darwish & Walid Shoebat – see post #3 above.

[Mike Renzulli]

Mark since you are an Objectivist, I would remind you what Ayn Rand said with regards to dictatorships:

"The right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as “the right to enslave.” A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal—but neither can do it by right.

It does not matter, in this context, whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). Whether a slave society was conquered or chose to be enslaved, it can claim no national rights and no recognition of such “rights” by civilized countries . . . .

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses."

In addition to Ms. Rand's statement and her experience in the Soviet Union, my family also experienced what a dictatorship was like. My family lived in Italy when Benito Mussolini was dictator and dictatorships are like cancers since once established they will oft times support violent and non-violent ideological causes in order to further their aims in an effort to enslave the populace of surrounding nations.

It was moral for the U.S. to invade Iraq and execute Saddam Hussein. The way the war was handled was messy and I do not excuse the idiotic decisions made during and after that invasion including the U.S.'s capitulation to allow the Iraqi constitution to allow for or be based on Sharia law. None the less there was evidence that Hussein was giving some sort of support to terrorists and President Bush, rightly, did put terrorist groups and countries that support them on notice that their activities would not be tolerated. He followed through but I think he should have gone after Iran and not Iraq.

The facts I have stated above are indisputable and you are doing yourself a disservice by ignoring them. No one (including myself) likes war and to see innocent people die. However, if you have an enemy that is hell bent on killing you and destroying the society you live in, what it stands for and (as the movies linked above clearly point out) has openly said so then we have a right to defend ourselves by any means necessary.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Selene]

Mike:

I frankly thought that invading Iraq and taking on Afghanistan were precursors to finalizing the staging areas to launch against Iran.

We will never know because our inept occupation of Iraq, wherein, we had, apparently, no intelligent plan for constructive occupation. We were not even smart enough to use the post WWII paradigm of the occupation of Germany, wherein we co-opted elements of the civil German "Nazi" administration to maintain continuity of the civil state.

Remember, we had a lot of die hard Germans who fought a post surrender war of attrition which ran up a lot of casualties for our occupying forces.

Therefore, the macro strategy, I believe, was always Iran, but we have completely lost our way. I see no constructive goals to be attained for us in Afghanistan. We should withdraw as quickly as safety will permit.

Adam

[Mark]

Off the topic of whether or not the Clarion Fund is a reputable outfit, but ...

Yes, a dictator has given up his right to self-defense. But if he isn’t threatening the U.S. the U.S. government has no moral right to tax and kill and maim Americans, not to mention kill and maim the dictator’s victims, in pursuit of his execution.

1940s Germany and 2003 Iraq have little in common, official Objectivist baloney notwithstanding. America – as opposed to the U.S. government – lost that war, by the way.

[Selene]

Off the topic of whether or not the Clarion Fund is a reputable outfit, but ...

Yes, a dictator has given up his right to self-defense. But if he isn’t threatening the U.S. the U.S. government has no moral right to tax and kill and maim Americans, not to mention kill and maim the dictator’s victims, in pursuit of his execution.

1940s Germany and 2003 Iraq have little in common, official Objectivist baloney notwithstanding. America – as opposed to the U.S. government – lost that war, by the way.

Mark:

Excellent argument on Ayn and WW I and II. Did you run across any date on her view of the Japanese attack on Pearl and whether we should have declared war on just Japan?

Adam

[Mark]

Doubtless Ayn Rand agreed with Leonard Peikoff about Pearl Harbor when he wrote The Ominous Parallels, because she helped him write it ("Rand read over the Ominous Parallels as Leonard was writing it. I’ve seen pages of early drafts marked up in her hand." – Amy Peikoff in the OO forum, 19 January 2004), and she praised the final result. A footnote near the end of chapter 14 reads (the first bracketed explanation is mine):

Once again [the first once being the first world war], the American public, which was strongly ‘isolationist,’ was manipulated by a pro-war administration into joining an ‘idealistic’ crusade. (On November 27, 1941, ten days before Pearl Harbor, writes John T. Flynn, ‘the President told Secretary Stimson, who wrote it in his diary, that our course was to maneuver the Japanese into attacking us. This would put us into the war and solve his problem.’ ) [from his book The Roosevelt Myth]

The Roosevelt Myth, by the way, was favorably reviewed in Ayn Rand’s The Objectivist Newsletter, December 1962.

For more on FDR, Pearl Harbor and WW II see the

Past Wars: WW II

on the Links page of ARI Watch.

Ayn Rand’s views before Pearl Harbor can be judged from her support for FDR (1932) then her support for Wendell Willkie (1940). See

Ayn Rand's Voting Record in Presidental Elections

Note also her disgust with Eisenhower.

Regarding Pearl Harbor, with the Ominous Parallels in mind, by the 1960s (at least) she may have thought that the primary enemy was FDR, that he should have been impeached first, then a just government could have punished Japan in some way. (To repeat, this is a conjecture. How to repair such disastrous treason is a hard question for anyone to answer.)

Soon after the war’s end Hal Wallis asked her to write a screenplay about the Manhattan Project. Some of her private notes and studio notes (late 1945, early 1946) are published in ARI’s version of her journals. We must suspect ARI doctored the text (that they changed some of the journal text is well-known) but even reading it as given, obviously she was worried that another screenwriter would use the Project to glorify state science. She took on the job, perhaps to contain the damage.

In any case, her mature, considered, and published view about U.S. entry into the war was that of adamant opposition.

Thank goodness the Manhattan Project movie was scrapped. It later surfaced that Robert Oppenheimer, administrative head of the project, was a fellow traveler, indeed a complete flake. Imagine Ayn Rand making a hero out of a communist.

A few years later she used Oppenheimer as model for her villain Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged. (I suspect she also used Robert Millikan, who not only had done research on cosmic rays, mentioned in the novel, he advocated government grants for science.)

Hate to say it but Ayn Rand may have gotten what she deserved for trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Hal Wallis sold his studio to MGM, including all her work on the script, to MGM and they butchered it for use in their own – Truman approved – film The Beginning or the End (1947).

Edited September 17, 2011 by Mark