Guardian Has A Terrorist Contributor
We all laughed when The Guardian re-printed the text of one of Osama bin Laden's speeches in the form of an opinion column. Some of us were a bit worried when it came to light that the paper had an anti-semitic terror-sympathizer on its writing staff.
Now The Guardian has a column up by a man named Saad al-Fagih. Who is Saad? According to The Guardian he "is a leading exiled Saudi dissident and director of the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia."
He is, in reality, more "terrorist" than "dissident."
There's more, so read the whole thing.
Given this situation along with the previous two I've mentioned (in addition to others I'm probably forgetting about) the only question that I feel needs to be asked is: Who's side is the The Guardian on? After three instances like those above one can no longer reasonably attribute the decisions to poor judgment.
Personally, I can't help but feel that The Guardian is making a concerted effort to create sympathy for those who would use terror tactics to defeat the British and American troops currently fighting for Iraqi freedom.
Now The Guardian has a column up by a man named Saad al-Fagih. Who is Saad? According to The Guardian he "is a leading exiled Saudi dissident and director of the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia."
He is, in reality, more "terrorist" than "dissident."
Al-Faiqih seems to have bought the satellite phone which was used by one of the Al Qaeda suicide bombers who blew up the US embassy in Nairobi.
Sa'ad al-Faqih, was "designated" by the United States Treasury on December 21, 2004 and on 23 Dec 2004 was named on the United Nations 1267 Committee consolidated list of individuals belonging to or associated with the Al-Qaida organisation.
On 14 July 2005, the US Treasury "designated" al-Faiqih's "Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia" (MIRA), a U.K.-based Saudi oppositionist organization, for providing material support to al Qaida:
There's more, so read the whole thing.
Given this situation along with the previous two I've mentioned (in addition to others I'm probably forgetting about) the only question that I feel needs to be asked is: Who's side is the The Guardian on? After three instances like those above one can no longer reasonably attribute the decisions to poor judgment.
Personally, I can't help but feel that The Guardian is making a concerted effort to create sympathy for those who would use terror tactics to defeat the British and American troops currently fighting for Iraqi freedom.
Hairy Polemic
Sparkie Arbuckle
Puzzlefeet
Hoss
The Whistler
Rob
RebTex
goon
pparets
Daniel
2Hotel9
