Fraudulent US Islamophobe William Bradford resigns at West Point military academy


This video says about itself:

27 May 2015

In his book, The Islamophobia Industry, Nathan Lean explores the rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment in North America and Europe and what he refers to as the “minds of the manufacturers of Islamophobia.”

From daily The Guardian in Britain:

West Point law professor who called for attacks on ‘Islamic holy sites’ resigns

William C Bradford departs institution that hired him in August following report on his call for scholars to be treated as ‘enemy combatants’

Spencer Ackerman in New York

Monday 31 August 2015 19.51 BST

A law professor who published an inflammatory article urging attacks on law professors and “Islamic holy sites” and who has been dogged by accusations of misrepresenting his academic and military credentials has resigned from the US Military Academy at West Point, the Guardian has confirmed.

Although West Point hired William C Bradford on 1 August, a spokesman said the prestigious undergraduate institution where the US army educates its future officers parted ways with the controversial academic on Sunday, the day after the Guardian published an article highlighting Bradford’s proposals to treat US scholars as “enemy combatants”.

“Dr William Bradford resigned on Sunday,” army lieutenant colonel Christopher Kasker, a West Point spokesman, told the Guardian on Monday. Bradford had taught five lessons for cadets in a common-core law course, from 17 to 27 August.

The West Point resignation marks the most recent academic departure for the controversial Bradford, following a decade’s worth of apparent exaggeration of his service record and academic career.

It remains unclear how thoroughly West Point vetted Bradford before hiring him.

Bradford recently published an academic article titled, in translation, “The Treason of the Professors”. The lengthy paper, which has been repudiated by its journal editor as a “mistake”, accused a “clique of about 40” law professors of active collaboration with “Islamist” organizations and recommended targeting them as enemy combatants.

Supplementing military action, Bradford recommended that Congress investigate links between the professors and “Islamism” under “a renewed version of the House Un-American Activities Committee”, which was one of the vehicles for the discredited “Red Scare” hunts for Communists in the 1950s.

Treason prosecutions shore up national unity, deter disloyalty, and reflect the seriousness with which the nation regards betrayal in war,” Bradford wrote.

Bradford went on to argue that “total war” against terrorism ought to include military targeting of “Islamic holy sites”, in order to restore an American deterrent. He acknowledged “great destruction, innumerable enemy casualties and civilian collateral damage” were entailed in his proposal, and suggested that dissent ought to be curbed.

“[D]oubts and disputes about this war [should] be muted lest around them coalesce a new set of self-imposed restraints that prevent Western forces from waging war with sufficient ferocity and resolve so that either Islamism is discredited and the political will of Islamist peoples to prosecute a jihad collapses, or, if necessary, all who countenance or condone Islamism are dead,” Bradford wrote.

Bradford had represented himself in academic papers as an “assistant professor” at the Defense Department-run National Defense University. But he was not a professor there, nor even a staff employee, according to NDU representatives. He is said to have worked for a Waynesboro, Virginia-based translations and business consultant, Translang, which had a contract with the university.

Before referring further comment to an attorney, Beatrice Boutros, Translang’s president, told the Guardian Bradford was not an employee of NDU.

Bradford has had a checkered academic career. In 2004, he quit a job teaching at the Indiana University School of Law after allegations emerged that he had exaggerated his military service, portraying himself inaccurately as a Gulf War veteran, an infantryman and a recipient of the prestigious Silver Star, an award for gallantry in action.

The army provided Bradford’s releasable service history to the Guardian on Monday. Bradford was commissioned into the army as a second lieutenant – the same rank West Point cadets hold upon commissioning – in 1995 and served the majority of his six-year service in military intelligence in the army reserve. He neither deployed nor earned any awards.

In 2005, the Guardian has learned, Bradford took a visiting professorship at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, teaching property law. A former student who wished to remain anonymous said Bradford’s behavior included “doing push-ups in class [and] making students stand and give answers in a military-like manner”.

Bradford, the former student said, ended up leaving his class – and ultimately the college – without grading the final exam.

A William and Mary spokesperson, Suzanne Seurattan, confirmed Bradford’s visiting professorship lasted a single semester, which she described as not unusual. She would not address whether Bradford had left under a cloud or did not submit his final exam grades ahead of departing the school.

West Point is known for its honor code, by which every cadet is expected to abide: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do.” Its graduates are judged by it during their entire careers in uniform.

Bradford did not return phone calls and emails seeking comment. A man answered his desk phone on Friday and confirmed the accuracy of the number, but denied being Bradford.

Myanmar, persecution and elections


This December 2012 video is called ROHINGYA in Arakan, Burma. Al Jazeera Investigates – The Hidden Genocide.

By Kenny Coyle in Britain:

Opposition silent on the Rohingya

Thursday 20th August 2015

The opposition should win a fair election in November but KENNY COYLE sees little commitment to an all-inclusive society

This November Myanmar (formerly Burma) will go to the polls in elections which will see the participation of the main opposition party the National League for Democracy (NLD). This is despite the current military-dominated government’s ruling that NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi remains ineligible due to her children holding British citizenship.

Suu Kyi has developed an ambivalent role in Myanmar politics since her release from house arrest in 2010. Earlier this year, she made a highly public visit to China — a move unthinkable without government approval — and she has been a guest of honour at official events to commemorate the centenary of her father, independence hero Aung San.

However, the Nobel Peace Prize winner has been criticised for her continuing silence on the crisis of Myanmar’s Rohingya people, thousands of whom have been killed in clashes or lost at sea and hundreds of thousands forced into exile during the past decade.

Behind this humanitarian catastrophe lurk the familiar ghosts of colonialism as well as domestic agendas.

Precise estimates of the Rohingya population inside the country are impossible as the Myanmar government refuses to recognise the Rohingya ethnicity, instead referring to them as “Bengalis.”

A national census was conducted in 2014 but respondents were only able to choose their ethnicity from one of 135 officially recognised groups categorised in 1982.

Most of Myanmar’s ethnic minorities inhabit areas along the country’s mountainous frontiers.

Karen and Shan groups comprise about 10 per cent each, while Akha, Chin, Chinese, Danu, Indian, Kachin, Karenni, Kayan, Kokang, Lahu, Mon, Naga, Palaung, Pao, Rakhine, Rohingya, Tavoyan, and Wa peoples each constitute 5 per cent or less of the population.

Myanmar presidential spokesman Ye Htut said of the census procedure: “If we ask a family about their ethnicity and they say Rohingya, we will not accept it. If they say Bengali or any other ethnicity it’s fine, but if they say Rohingya we will not register it.”

Rohingyas, whose language is a branch of Bengali, are concentrated in the Myanmar state of Arakan (Rakhine) which borders Bangladesh.

Government data from 2010 put Arakan’s population at about 3.34 million people, of which the Muslim population accounted for 29 per cent. While not all of Arakan’s Muslims are Rohingyas, the figure chimes with most independent estimates that there are more than a million Rohingyas within Myanmar and perhaps another 250,000 outside, principally in neighbouring Bangladesh and Thailand.

Interviewed by Mishal Husein of the BBC in 2013, Suu Kyi framed her response to questions on the Rohingyas within a familiar Islamophobic agenda.

“I think we’ll accept that there is a perception that Muslim power, global Muslim power, is very great, and certainly that’s a perception in many parts of the world and in our country, too…

“This is what the world needs to understand, that the fear isn’t just on the side of the Muslims but on the side of the Buddhists as well… There’s fear on both sides. And this is what is leading to all these troubles. And we would like the world to understand that the reaction of the Buddhists is also based on fear.”

However, this approach not only undermines the very idea of a Myanmar nation based on civic equality but effectively cleaves a country of 135 officially recognised national and ethnic groups into two neat and very unequal components.

Buddhists account for nearly 90 per cent of the country’s inhabitants but that hasn’t stopped the country’s military from conducting ethnically based pogroms against minority nationalities.

For several decades, successive military regimes have discriminated against non-Bamar minorities regardless of their religion.

These minorities are generally Buddhist but also comprise large numbers of Christians, especially among the Chin, Karen and Kachin communities. Islam was not a factor in the army’s onslaughts against these peoples.

One key historical factor fueling the crisis stems from Britain’s colonial legacy in the region.

Burma’s value to British imperialism was in its forests, especially teak and oil. Burmah Oil dominated the latter industry for more than eight decades until nationalisation in 1962. Energy resources continue to draw international attention although today gas production far outstrips oil.

Arakan was an independent state until 1785 when it fell to the Burmese. Britain subsequently annexed Arakan in 1824 in the first of three Anglo-Burmese wars that pushed the frontiers of the empire eastward from India. The third war in 1885 ended Burmese statehood and its remaining territories became part of British India. Burma only became a separately governed colony in 1937.

Estimates vary about the size of the pre-colonial Rohingya population in Arakan and that of subsequent migrations of Bengalis during the period prior to 1937 when Burma and Bengal were both regions of British India. Subseqent migrations of Bengalis during the partition of India in 1948 and the Pakistan-Bangladesh war of 1971 have been used by the Burmese government to discredit the idea that the Rohingya are indigenous to Burma.

Britain’s colonial rule is generally overlooked as a factor in exacerbating ethnic tensions. This is remarkable given the track record of British imperialism. As in almost every other case, British domination over subject peoples was based on the maxim of divide and rule to undermine the majority Burmese or Bamar people.

Until 1937, majority ethnic Bamar (Burmans) were prevented from serving in the British colonial forces in substantial numbers. Instead recruitment was centred on three of the country’s largest minority groups, Kachin, Karen and Chins.

When conflict between the British empire and Japan broke out in 1941, this ethnic division was deepened. During WWII against Japan, Rohingyas also served in British forces in some numbers.

Aung San, who had been a founder member of the Communist Party of Burma, broke with the party and established the Burmese Independence Army. Its membership was drawn largely from the Bamar majority group.

Towards the end of the WWII, the Aung San nationalists reunited in August 1944 with the communists in the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League. In 1947, while negotiating independence from Britain, a conference was held at Panglong to bring the major ethnic groups together to create the foundations of a multi-ethnic and democratic Burma.

However, within six months Aung San had been assassinated by right-wing rivals and the communists were driven underground or into rural bases where they fought an armed struggle against the Burmese state for four decades.

National minorities such as the Karen, Shan and Wa likewise established their own forces to resist Bamar domination.

Great hopes have therefore rested on Aung San Suu Kyi’s capacity for national reconciliation and renewal after decades of internal conflict.

There is little doubt that in fair and free elections, Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy would win. However, her failure to stand up and speak for all Myanmar citizens regardless of language or faith is a worrying sign that, on this issue at least, little will change after November’s results.

Anti-Semitic football supporters


This video from Germany says about itself:

Anti-Islamist Riots in Germany: Hooligans Against Salafists

17 December 2014

Demonstrations held by the far-right group Hooligans against Salafists — also known as HoGeSa — have recently gained momentum in Germany, as they organize marches in cities across the country. While the group claims to be protesting against Islamist extremism, the movement is widely accused of harnessing Islamophobia as a means of spreading racism.

VICE News followed the Hooligans against Salafists movement from its first full-blown demonstration-turned-riot in Cologne, which was attended by 4,800 people.

Yesterday, supporters of football club ADO marched in The Hague, the Netherlands. It was a protest against police officers striking for higher wages, which led to an ADO match being canceled.

According to witnesses, some of these fans shouted anti-Semitic slogans, like ‘cancer Jews’. Police are now investigating this.

There is an extreme right tradition among a minority of ADO supporters. When the club still played in their old stadium, in the Zuiderpark, these far right hooligans, calling themselves ‘North side nazis’ used to gather on the north side bleachers.

UPDATE: a 29-year-old man was arrested for anti-Semitic slogans this Saturday. Maybe more people will get arrested.

British Islamophobes’ ‘racial holy war’ plans


This video from North America says about an extreme right ‘racial holy war‘ propagandist:

14 July 2015

Paul Craig Cobb better known as Craig Cobb, is an American Canadian White Nationalist, White Separatist, Neo-Nazi, antisemite and Holocaust denier who operates the video sharing website Podblanc.

By Luke James in Britain:

Operation Race Riot

Tuesday 28th July 2015

Campaigners expose far-right bid to launch a race war off the back of insulting cartoon exhibition of the Muslim prophet Mohammed

A RACIST plot to spark a “civil war” in Britain by staging a provocative exhibition of prophet Mohammed cartoons was blown open by campaigners yesterday.

Anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate published a 32-page dossier alleging that a September 18 exhibition will be at the centre of a plan to spark confrontations in multicultural communities.

Chief executive Nick Lowles called on the authorities to stop the event, saying it is “simply seeking to incite division, hatred and violence.”

Mr Lowles warned: “Some simply want to provoke a violent reaction from Muslims in order to present them in a negative and intolerant light.

“Others hope the cartoons will spark a series of tit-for-tat violence that will ultimately lead to civil war.”

The Sharia Watch group — run by Ukip general election candidate Anne Marie Waters — announced plans for the exhibition earlier this month.

The event at an undisclosed central London venue is to feature cartoons from “satirical” magazine Vive Charlie, which counts Sun columnist Katie Hopkins among its supporters.

Infamous far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders, previously banned from Britain as an “undesirable” for his virulent Islamophobia, is to be the main speaker at the event.

A similar exhibition attended by Mr Wilders in Texas this year was attacked by two armed men, who were shot dead by police.

The Home Office appeared to suggest yesterday that Mr Wilders could be barred entry to Britain to attend the event.

A spokeswoman said the government doesn’t comment on individual cases before adding: “The Home Secretary has the power to exclude non-British nationals from the UK.

“The government makes no apologies for refusing people access to the UK if we believe they present a threat to our society.”

Organisers claimed the event was part of a campaign to defend free speech in the wake of the deadly attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in January by Islamic extremists.

But Hope Not Hate’s year-long investigation has revealed the real and “sinister” motives behind the event.

The group has insider evidence that Ms Marie Waters and other white extremists discussed using the exhibition to ignite race riots.

She met last month with English Defence League founders Stephen Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson) and Alan Ayling, as well as Britain First founder Jim Dowson, according to information passed to Hope Not Hate.

One idea allegedly discussed by the group was to hold a number of demonstrations in areas with large Muslim populations at the same time.

Racist activists would wave placards showing images of the prophet Mohammed in the hope of inciting a violent backlash from local Muslims.

“They believed that police would be too stretched to cope and at least one of the demos would lead to a riot,” the report states.

A source closer to Mr Lennon reported that “Isis sleeper sells within the UK would be activated to commit terrorist attacks” in response to the exhibition.

Mr Lennon was said to believe that ex-soldiers would then “take the law into their own hands.”

The report also highlights how British fanatics openly discuss plans for civil war scenarios online, including suggestions about urban warfare.

One recent fictional account of a civil war posted anonymously began with the publication of Mohammed cartoons.

Hope Not Hate says it is “highly disturbing” that people can openly talk about murdering Muslims in a civil war and face no police action.

Mr Lowles added: “This report is more than just an exposé of attempts to use the cartoons to incite a violent reaction.

“It is about a group of political extremists, as dangerous as the Islamists they claim to dislike, who are seeking to bring society to its knees and drive Muslims out of Europe through fear, violence and murder.”

Ms Marie Waters, who stood for Ukip in Lewisham East in May, denied the allegations and the party said it was standing behind her.

See also here.

After Breivik’s massacre, again social democrat youth camp on Utøya, Norway


This video says about itself:

MASS MURDERER: Breivik gets 21 years for 77 LIVES & REGRETS not killing MORE

25 August 2012

Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik – who admitted killing 77 people, and taunted the court with Nazi salutes – has been declared sane by judges.

He’s been jailed for the maximum 21 years, for committing the country’s worst atrocity since World War 2, with his bombing and gun rampage in Oslo and Utøya island. But, broken down, his sentence equates to just over three months for each of his victims.

Breivik smirked when he heard the verdict. At the end of his sentencing, he apologised to ‘militant nationalists‘ for not killing more people. He’s always insisted on his sanity, and that the killings were part of his fight against the ‘Islamification of Norway.’ EU countries were suffering a rise in far-right activities before the tragedy but, as Tesa Arcilla reports, Breivik‘s ideas are fuelling even more hatred towards immigrants and Islam.

Translated from NOS TV in the Netherlands:

Four years after the Breivik attacks, Utøya youth camp again

Today, 07:17

In Norway it is commemorated that Anders Breivik exactly four years massacred people on the island Utøya and in the Oslo city center. Killing 77 people. For the first time the youth wing of the Labour Party is organizing this year a summer camp on the island.

Most of the deaths from the attacks in 2011 were young people from the Labour Party who were at the camp on Utøya. …

The chair of the youth organization AUF of the Labour Party, Mani Hussaini, said Utøya now more than ever is important for the party.

“The island symbolizes so much more than July 22, 2011. It is an island where we always will commemorate and honour our friends that we have lost,” says Hussaini. “On the island, we will learn more about the ideals that were attacked on that dark day and how we as a society can prevent something like this from ever happening again.”

There are said to be over a thousand interested people who want to come to the camp in August. The AUF president says that everyone is welcome. “By going back to Utøya, we show that we are stronger than ever,” said Hussaini.

British Conservatives help ISIS


This 12 May 2015 video from Britain says about itself:

Russell Brand, Abby Martin: David Cameron: Islamophobia to Control You, Part 1.

This video is the sequel.

Since 2002, Right-wing White Terrorists have Killed More Americans Than Muslim Extremists: here.

By Seumas Milne in daily The Guardian in Britain:

By scapegoating Muslims, Cameron fuels radicalisation

Ministers foster terror with their wars. Now they attack liberties at home in the name of British values

Wednesday 24 June 2015 20.54 BST

The anti-Muslim drumbeat has become deafening across the western world. As images of atrocities by the jihadi terror group Isis multiply online, and a steady trickle of young Europeans and North Americans head to Syria and Iraq to join them, Muslim communities are under siege. Last week David Cameron accused British Muslims of “quietly condoning” the ideology that drives Isis sectarian brutality, normalising hatred of “British values”, and blaming the authorities for the “radicalisation” of those who go to fight for it.

It was too much for Sayeeda Warsi, the former Conservative party chair, who condemned the prime minister’s “misguided emphasis” on “Muslim community complicity”. He risked “further alienating” the large majority of Muslims fighting the influence of such groups, she warned. Even Charles Farr, the hawkish counter-terrorism mandarin at the Home Office, balked. Perhaps fewer than 100 Britons were currently fighting with Isis, he said, and “we risk labelling Muslim communities as somehow intrinsically extremist”.

But Cameron and his neoconservative allies are preparing the ground for the government’s next onslaught. The target will not be terrorism, but “non-violent extremism”. Next month, from nursery schools to optometrists, health services to universities, all will be legally obliged to monitor students and patients for any sign of “extremism” or “radicalisation”.

The new powers represent a level of embedded security surveillance in public life unprecedented in peacetime. We already know from the government’s Prevent programme the chilling impact of such mass spying on schools, where Muslim pupils have been reported for speaking out in favour of Palestinian rights or against the role of British troops in Afghanistan.

But the “counter-extremism” bill announced in the Queen’s Speech is about to take the anti-Muslim clampdown a whole stage further. The plans include banning orders for non-violent individuals and organisations whose politics are considered unacceptable; physical restriction orders for non-violent individuals deemed “harmful”; powers to close mosques; and vetting controls on broadcasters accused of airing extremist material. It’s censorship under any other name.

That was the view of Sajid Javid, then culture secretary, in a leaked letter to the prime minister earlier this year. But Cameron shows every sign of pressing ahead with what amounts to a full-blown assault on basic liberties. Most ludicrously, the new powers are defended in the name of “British values”, including “individual liberty” and “mutual respect and tolerance”.

But as became clear in the aftermath of the murderous Paris attack on Charlie Hebdo earlier this year, we are not all Charlie when it comes to freedom of speech. Anti-extremism powers will be used overwhelmingly against Muslims, rather than, say, non-Muslim homophobes and racists who have little interest in mutual respect and tolerance.

And they will fail, as their earlier incarnations have done, to discourage the small minority drawn to terrorism at home or jihadi campaigns abroad. Government ministers claim such violence is driven by “ideology” rather than injustice, grievance or its own policies. But, given that they refuse to speak to any significant Muslim organisation they don’t agree with or fund, perhaps it’s not surprising to find them in thrall to an ideology, neoconservatism, of their own.

Any other explanation for the terror threat would in any case implicate the government and its predecessors. In reality, it shouldn’t be so hard to understand why a small section of young alienated Muslims are attracted to fight in Syria and Iraq with Isis and other such groups. Jihadi “ideology” has been around for a long time. But there were no terror attacks in Britain before US and British forces invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and those behind every violent attack or terror plot have cited western intervention in the Muslim world as their motivation.

Isis has a different appeal to al-Qaida. It has taken huge stretches of territory using naked terror, destroyed borders and set up a self-proclaimed caliphate. In the Middle East it presents itself as the defender of Sunnis in a convulsive sectarian war. For a few young marginalised western Muslims, such groups can offer the illusion of a fight against tyranny and a powerful sense of identity.

But add in relentless media hostility, rampant Islamophobia, state surveillance and harassment of Muslim communities, and such alienation can only spread. In the past year, we’ve had the “Trojan Horse” Birmingham schools plot that never was, the ousting of an elected Muslim mayor of Tower Hamlets by a judge – including on grounds that he had exercised “undue spiritual influence” on Muslims – and evidence of an increasing level of anti-Muslim attacks. Islamophobia now far outstrips hostility to any other religion or ethnic group.

Ministers and their media allies downplay the role of “foreign policy” in Muslim radicalisation, against all the evidence. By foreign policy, they mean multiple western invasions and occupations of Muslim states, torture and state kidnapping on a global scale, and support for dictatorships across the Arab and Muslim world. That includes Saudi Arabia, of course, which shares much of Isis’s “ideology” and practices; and Egypt, whose ex-military leader, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, overthrew the elected president in 2013 and is soon to be welcomed to Downing Street.

Isis is itself the direct product of the US and British occupation and destruction of Iraq, and both countries back armed rebel groups fighting in Syria – as they did in Libya. So no wonder would-be jihadis get confused about who is on whose side. Western Isis volunteers are a disaster for Syria and Iraq, but so far they haven’t carried out return attacks at home.

That could of course change, not least as the government criminalises dissent, brands conservative religiosity “extremist” and, in the formulation of ministers, “quietly condones” Islamophobia. The British government has long fed terrorism with its warmaking abroad. Now it’s also fuelling it with its scapegoating of Muslims at home.