2017-03-11 BBC + BPAS + MP Diana Johnson pro-abortion biased interviews

Home 

BBC + BPAS (British Pregnancy [ 'P' should be for Pro-abortion ] Advisory Service ) + MP Diana Johnson : pro-abortion biased interviews

BBC News: 2017-03-11: legalisation of abortions in the UK.

Content in this page:

Part1: BPAS representative Clare Murphy ignores question about the 'ending of life' in abortions.

Part2: BBC misleads the public, mentioning that the 'Royal College of Midwives is backing the legalisation of abortions'.

Part3: Labour MP Diana Johnson says that the UK is one of the most punitive regimes in Europe, for keeping in place 1861 laws to protect the lives of pre-born babies. (a lie).

Part4: Labour MP Diana Johnson suggests that countries should follow the steps of Australia and make abortion legal, because she thinks that people like her can decide what "should happen in our society".



PART 1: at 01min:33sec of the main video

BPAS representative Clare Murphy ignores question about the 'ending of life' in abortions.

- she avoids answering question around the fact that an abortion involves 'ending the life of a human being'.

- she mentions that in the XXI century they trust that women can make the rights decisions for their lives. But she doesn't mention that BPAS mainly provides women with information about how to opt in for an abortion. Also most of their material intentionally don't mention information about the pre-born baby (human being) that is killed during the abortion, they mainly refer to the baby as the 'removal of the pregnancy'.  Removing all humanity from the pre-born baby, and hiding the fact that a human being is killed during the abortion.

Our question is: How can we trust that women are making the right decisions based on the biased information that they receive from BPAS and similar organisations around the world, which de-humanise the pre-born baby, hide the risks to the life of the mother and hide the risks for future pregnancies of the woman?




PART 2: at 02min:36sec of the main video

BBC misleads the public, mentioning that the 'Royal College of Midwives is backing the legalisation of abortions'

BBC misleads the public, mentioning that the 'Royal College of Midwives is backing legalisation of abortions'.
The fact is: that just a few people inside of the 'Royal College of Midwives' - who DO NOT represent the voice of the majority of members - abusing of their positions in the organisation are backing the legalisation of abortions.
One of the main persons involved in these wrong doings is 'Cathy Warwick', Chief Executive of Royal College of Midwives, and at the same time Chair of BPAS (British Pregnancy [ or 'P' should be for Pro-abortion ] Advisory Service).
This is morally wrong, and there is a clear conflict of interest.

Sources:
https://www.rcm.org.uk/about/who-we-are/cathy-warwick
https://www.bpas.org/about-our-charity/history/bpas-people/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/as-a-midwife-im-horrified-by-my-union-leaders-support-for-unlimited-abortion/
http://notinourname.co/



PART 3: at 06min:15sec of the main video

Labour MP Diana Johnson says that the UK is one of the most punitive regimes in Europe, for keeping in place 1861 laws to protect the lives of pre-born babies (a lie).

FYI: Ms. Diana Johnson, the year when a law was implemented should NOT matter, as long as that law is there to protect Human life.
According to your mentality: should we start removing laws that prevent things like the 'holocaust' from happening again, maybe because there may be laws related to that topic that are becoming a bit too old?

The fact is: that NO WOMAN in your country has gone to prison for life, for having an abortion. From our research, there seem to be only TWO KNOWN CASES of women that received just a couple of years of sentence, but this has been because they carried out abortions on babies that were in the 32 and 39 week of the pregnancy, which means that they were almost fully developed babies, that could have perfectly lived outside of the womb of the mother.
So, should the law allow and make legal the killing of these babies?.
Should the law allow the killing of babies that are 32 or 39 weeks old, in the womb of their mothers? and what about pre-mature or pre-born babies in the same age? 

In your country, it seems that animals are better protected than humans. In your country, people can be jailed for destroying eggs of wild birds, for disturbing them, or even for destroying their nests.
A report of the European Parliament (section 2.1.2)  on crime against Wildlife in the UK, shows these figures:

In 2005, an amendment to the domestic regulation enforcing the CITES convention in the UK increased the maximum prison sentence for wildlife crimes from 2 years to 5 years. The level of fines is unlimited. According to the 2013/2014 CITES biennial report, 18 criminal prosecution cases took place. These included the following cases which resulted in the indicated sanctions: 

• six months imprisonment for trying to smuggle over 750 kg  of rare and endangered corals and clams from Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam to the UK;
• fine of GBP 555 for three occasions of fraudulently evading a restriction on the export of ivory;
• one year of imprisonment for smuggling San Salvador rock iguanas to the UK.

The number of prosecutions varied in previous years. There were 4 prosecutions between 2007 and 2008, 21 prosecutions between 2009 and 2010 and 4 prosecutions between 2011 and 2012. Significant cases included the following which resulted in the indicated sanctions:

• a GBP 500 fine for an attempt to sell two ring tailed lemurs on the internet;
• nine months sentence suspended for two years and GBP 3,607 cost to be paid for the illegal importation of bird eggs from the US and Australia and the illegal sale of the eggs;
• twelve months of imprisonment for the attempted smuggling of rhino horns from the UK to China;
• Fine of GBP 600 for the purchase and sale of barn owls; 
• Two years suspended sentence and GBP 1,480 in cost recovery for selling elephant ivory, hippo ivory and sperm whale teeth. 

This means that in your country the law is more punitive with people that destroy wildlife, than with people that end the life of human beings (pre-born children).
We agree on protecting wildlife, this is OK. But it is not right that HUMAN BEINGS receive less protection than animals and wildlife.

In 2006 you supported a ban on "docking of dogs' tails".
You mentioned that: "Having received representations from many different groups and individuals on this issue, I am satisfied that tail docking is cruel, inflicts pain and is largely unnecessary"
On that year; about the cruelty on animals you also mentioned: "Some of the stories we hear too frequently of neglect and outright cruelty cause great public anger and there must be stronger protection for animals and heavier punishment for those guilty of mistreatment".

Don't you think that pre-born babies also fill pain when they are killed during an abortion?
If you think that the docking of dogs' tails is cruel, don't you think that the dismemberment and disembowelment of pre-born babies in the womb of their mothers is also cruel?

On top of that:
Because of the fact that 'ONE African elephant is killed every 15 minutes'; currently, your Labour Party seems to be promoting a ban on the traffic of "ivory" and actively promoting the protection of elephants and rhino.

Did you know that in your own country, an average of 'SIX babies are killed(abortions) every 15 minutes"?

Sources:
http://www.healthcentre.org.uk/abortion/faqs-how-many.html
https://www.spuc.org.uk/news/news-stories/2016/may/509-unborn-babies-killed-every-day-as-abortions-increase-nationwide

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/mps-to-debate-bill-that-would-decriminalise-abortion/
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/578963/IPOL_IDA(2016)578963_EN.pdf

MP backs tail docking ban
http://www.dianajohnson.co.uk/node/356
Hull MP backs crackdown on animal cruelty
http://www.dianajohnson.co.uk/node/371



PART 4: at 07min:36sec of the main video

Labour MP Diana Johnson suggests that countries should follow the steps of Australia and make abortion legal, because she thinks that people like her can decide what "should happen in our society".

It seems that you ignore the atrocities that are happening in countries like Australia, as a consequence of opening more doors to abortion and legalising it.
Example:
In Australia the number of babies left to die after surviving late-term abortions has increased.

The number of babies surviving late-term abortions have increased in Queensland, figures released by Health Minister Cameron Dick have shown.

Calendar year	Terminations with live birth outcome
2005	8
2006	16
2007	20
2008	15
2009	13
2010	17
2011	20
2012	20
2013	23
2014	25
2015	27
Total	204

Visit Source.

The public should not forget the many controversies that you caused in your country around the misuse of public money (expenses).
Reminders:
2009: MPs' expenses: Diana Johnson claims £987 for an architect and repays it two years later,
2010: Questions grow over Labour MP Diana Johnson's expenses


Sources:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5346560/MPs-expenses-Diana-Johnson-claims-987-for-an-architect-and-repays-it-two-years-later.html
http://www.libdemvoice.org/diane-johnson-expenses-hull-north-18416.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-15/babies-of-late-terminations-left-to-die-without-care/7512618



Based in all this information, we think that it is NOT SAFE that people and politicians like you should dictate and decide what "should happen (and what should be legal) in our societies". After all, British politicians with a similar mentality, moral and ethics like yours kept 'slavery' legal for so many years.

From across the Atlantic.
Nice regards.

Free Ecuador.


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

Related YouTube videos:

Playlist: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RifyIiNivbo&list=PL3_Sari89Hp5SUdxPuyVzDoXumb6xiJPB


Main Video: 8min8sec Main Video
BBC + BPAS (British Pregnancy [ 'P' should be for Pro-abortion ] Advisory Service ) + Mp Diana Johnson pro-abortion biased interviews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RifyIiNivbo 



Extracts from the main video:

Part1: 33 seconds (extract from main video)
BPAS representative Clare Murphy ignores question about the 'ending of life' in abortions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASRv8oXSySQ

Part2: 15 seconds (extract from main video)
BBC misleads the public, mentioning that the 'Royal College of Midwives is backing the legalisation of abortions'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uJyKmlzuYI

Part3: 8 seconds (extract from main video)
Labour MP Diana Johnson says that the UK is one of the most punitive regimes in Europe, for keeping in place 1861 laws to protect the lives of pre-born babies. (a lie).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiT0IED37ro

Part4: 25 seconds (extract from main video)
Labour MP Diana Johnson suggests that countries should follow the steps of Australia and make abortion legal, because she thinks that people like her can decide what "should happen in our society".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6aGjMeysZA

The evil: Qatar targets Ecuador: the islamisation of Latin America

The evil: Qatar targets Ecuador: the islamisation of Latin America
Versión en Español  Home Social:       

Dec. 13 2014, NY.

The ignorance of of Rafael Correa's government about the risks of doing business with muslim countries is one of the main reasons why Ecuador is opening doors to countries like Qatar. Another reason is the blind hate to the USA, and the silly idea that "the enemies of my enemies are my friends". We have to be alert to the tentacles of the USA and their foreign policies in Latin America, but doing businesses with muslim countries will not do any good to Latin America, they are worst that the USA.

Naive Correa visited Qatar in October 2014, where Qataris started delivering the Trojan Horse (Islamisation through business links) that they prepared for Ecuador.
The ignorance of muslim mentality and culture is so incredible in Correa's government, that as a sign of respect Correa showed the soles of his shoes to the Qataris during the meeting that he attended.

Source: thepeninsulaqatar.com

Qataris have everything planned, ensuring that all channels are open to achieve their goals; so they convinced Ecuador to sign an Open Sky Air Transport Agreement.

Source: Qatar civil aviation authority

A couple of days ago, Ecuador and Qatar signed an agreement, allowing Qatar to invest around 5000 million USD in Ecuador.

Video (Spanish only, 4min): Source (Spanish only)
In the video: Ecuadorian businessmen seem to have no clue about all the implications of signing a MOA agreement with Qatar, it's like signing a contract with the Devil.
Like in the Ecuadorain legend of Cantuña, the silly government of Rafael Correa is putting Ecuador on a golden plate and offering it to the Qataris.

Similar situation, like when Ecuador signed business agreements with Iran, which Iran used for moving to Ecuador's Central Bank huge amounts of money, possibly linked with money laundering and terrorism. (Google it!)
One of many sources: www.newsmax.com

Qatar and other muslim countries have a well planned strategy to spread islam to the rest of the world, and one of the main tools is business and investments in the targeted countries.

On the other side, Qatar is supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and ISIL, something that has been publicly exposed by many international newspapers and even by the German Development Minister Gerd Mueller.

Photos:
Left: Doha - Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, welcoming Khaled Meshal, leader of terorist group Hamas.
Right: Atrocities of ISIL.
Sources:
1.- Qatar runs covert desert training camp for Syrian rebels
2.- Qatar allows money to flow to Islamic State, other jihad terrorists
3.- Qatar allows money to flow to ISIS, other terrorists
4.- German minister accuses Qatar of funding Islamic State fighters

Qatar and the islamisation of Europe:

France:
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org

Qatar said its investment was intended to support small businesses in disadvantaged Muslim neighborhoods. But as Qatar, like Saudi Arabia, subscribes to the ultra-conservative Wahhabi sect of Islam, critics say the emirate's real objective is to peddle its religious ideology among Muslims in France and other parts of Europe.

Shortly before Qatar announced its plans to invest in France, Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, who has long cultivated an image as a pro-Western reformist and modernizer, vowed to "spare no effort" to spread the fundamentalist teachings of Wahhabi Islam across "the whole world."

The promotion of Islamic extremist ideologies -- particularly Wahhabism, which not only discourages Muslim integration in the West, but actively encourages jihad against non-Muslims -- threatens to further radicalize Muslim immigrants in France.

England:
Qatar has a very close relationship with England and the monarchy in this country. This allowed them to invest huge amounts of money in London, their businesses include: the Shard, Harrods, 6.67% of Barclays (Bank), the Olympic Village, Chelsea Barracks (properties), 26% of Sanbury's (one of the biggest supermarket in England), One Hide Park (properties), 20% Camdem Market, 20% of London Stock Exchange, etc, etc, etc.
The Shard: building administrated under 'Sharia Law', the tallest building in Europe, that has become the new icon in London, replacing traditional British icons like Buckingham Palace and St Paul Cathedral. 
Source:  http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com

The bad: Suspicious: Purple/Dark tomato debuts as ‘Indigo Rose’

Scientists playing with nature?

According to the scientists this new variety has not been the product of genetic manipulations.
They say that is just the result of mixing several varieties of the product, one of them taken from our Galapagos Islands.

Source: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/gardening/purple-tomato-debuts-%E2%80%98indigo-rose%E2%80%99

The evil: shocking. muslims joking about terrorist attacks, in our faces...

This film has been broadcasted in some TV stations in England. Muslims joking about terrorist attacks, in our faces...
They have no respect for the lives of civilian targets, lost in the terrorist attacks in London.

Evil muslim extremists.

The bad: Philips Sonicare: subliminal messages encouraging homosexuality

On Wed Oct 2. 2013 Philips Sonicare showed an ad with subliminal messages encouraging homosexuality in some newspaper in England.

The ad used the following image:

This is no surprise, as in the annual report for 2012, Philips mentions: "As part of our efforts to reach out to under-represented groups within Philips, we have set up popular networks for female employees and for gay and lesbian employees."

For sure these employees are doing everything, so that they promote more and more homosexuality in the new ads from Philips.

Crazy and evil!

The bad: Assange expenses covered with money from Ecuador?

Source: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/free-assange-so-he-can-treat-lung-infection-8367549.html

Ms Alban, Ecuador’s ambassador to Britain, said: “Mr Assange, as every-one knows, is in a confined space. Not only does the embassy have few windows but the city is also dark at this time — we have very little daylight in London.” She added that he is receiving medical help within the embassy and Ecuador was covering the costs.

Evil: Islam: Aisha and Mohammed: pedophilia?

Español Home Social:       

Make your own conclusions!!!
You are not forced to believe what we expose in this article, take this information and do your own research!


Here the facts:

The scene and the characters: Aisha and Mohammed
- When Aisha was 6 years old, she was given as a wife to Mohammed (marriage ceremony)
- 3 years later, when Aisha was 9 years old, still a small girl enjoying her childhood, playing with her friends. In the twinkle of an eye, is forced to have sex with Mohammed, a man 52 years old. (consummation of marriage, sex, intercourse)


Official muslim sources for this event (Hadiths and others):

"Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She too hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have shared in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him" Ref: Tabari Hadith, 9. 131


Summary:
A 52 years old man (Mohammed - the prophet of Islam) having sex with a 9 years old child (Aisha).


Definition of pedophilia:
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children
Source: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pedofilia


Our conclusion: 
Clearly this event described in muslim literature is an act of pedophilia. 

See the facts and make your own conclusion!

Evil: ISLAM & VIOLENCE: Al Qaeda

While leaders around the world call for calm and peace, MUSLIM leaders call for more violence:

Source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57514751-503543/al-qaeda-in-the-islamic-maghreb-urges-killing-of-more-u.s-diplomats-in-north-africa/

"We incite Muslims to carry on and escalate their protests, and we invite Muslim youths for follow the footsteps of the Lions of Benghazi, by tearing down U.S. flags off their embassies in all our capital cities, torching them, after stamping them with our feet, and killing their ambassadors and diplomats, or expelling them to cleanse our land from their evil," said the group in a three-page statement posted on a jihadi web forum.

A vehicle is engulfed in flames after it was set on fire inside the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012. Inset is a photo of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack.

 (Credit: Getty/AP)

The ugly: Scientists playing to be God: 'Three people, one baby'

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19597856

Scientists playing with the unknown and with the human kind as objects.

A public consultation has been launched to discuss the ethics of using three people to create one baby.

The technique could be used to prevent debilitating and fatal "mitochondrial" diseases, which are passed down only from mother to child.
However, the resulting baby would contain genetic information from three people - two parents and a donor woman.
Ministers could change the law to make the technique legal after the results of the consultation are known.
About one in 200 children are born with faulty mitochondria - the tiny power stations which provide energy to every cell in the body.
Most show little or no symptoms, but in the severest cases the cells of the body are starved of energy. It can lead to muscle weakness, blindness, heart failure and in some cases can be fatal.
Mitochondria are passed on from the mother's egg to the child - the father does not pass on mitochondria through his sperm. The idea to prevent this is to add a healthy woman's mitochondria into the mix.
Two main techniques have been shown to work in the laboratory, by using a donor embryo or a donor egg.
How do you make a baby from three people?

Step 1. Eggs from a mother with damaged mitochondria and a donor with healthy mitochondria are collected. Step 2. The majority of the genetic material is removed from both eggs. Step 3. The mother's genetic material is inserted into the donor egg, which can be fertilised by sperm.

Continue reading the main story

2/2

However, mitochondria contain their own genes in their own set of DNA. It means any babies produced would contain genetic material from three people. The vast majority would come from the mother and father, but also mitochondrial DNA from the donor woman.

This would be a permanent form of genetic modification, which would be passed down through the generations.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

It has huge potential significance for society because for the first time children would be born with DNA from three people - what has frequently been dubbed 'three parent IVF'. Crucially that genetic alteration to what's known as the germ line would be permanent, handed down from generation to generation”

It is one of the ethical considerations which will be discussed as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's consultation.

The chair of the organisation, Prof Lisa Jardine, said: "It is genetic modification of the egg - that is uncharted territory. Once we have genetic modification we have to be sure we are damn happy."
She said it was a question of "balancing the desire to help families have healthy children with the possible impact on the children themselves and wider society".
Other ethical issues will also be considered, such as how children born through these techniques feel, when they should be told, the effect on the parents and the status of the donor woman - should she be considered in the same way as an egg donor in IVF?

Hundreds of mitochondria in every cell provide energy

It is not the first time these issues have been discussed. A report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the treatment was ethically OK, but the group Human Genetics Alert said the procedure was unnecessary, dangerous and set a precedent for genetically modified designer babies.
The consultation will run until 7 December and the conclusions will be presented to ministers next spring.
Research into the area is legal in the UK, but it cannot be used in patients.

However, treatments in IVF clinics will be years away even if the public and ministers decide the techniques should go ahead. There are still questions around safety which need to be addressed.

One of the pioneers of the methods, Prof Mary Herbert from Newcastle University, said: "We are now undertaking experiments to test the safety and efficacy of the new techniques.
"This work may take three to five years to complete."

Jihad money?: Islamic Relief Worldwide & Islamic Relief USA. Where does the money go?

Where the money from UK tax payers is going to? To the ones that want to kill us?

Source: http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/islamic-relief-worldwide-islamic-relief-usa/

September 7, 2011

The Obama administration’s Department of Agriculture has gotten in a bit of trouble lately for touting its relationship with Islamic Relief USA.  IR-USA is the biggest Islamic charity in the U.S., and defenders of the USDA policy will no doubt point to IR-USA’s four-star charity rating and its shining reputation as one of America’s best Muslim nonprofit organizations.
But unpleasant information has been coming out lately about both IR-USA* and its parent organization, the U.K.-based Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW).  Today, Money Jihad highlights the cash flow and financial closeness between the supposedly separate IR-USA and IRW organizations.
IRW has always been troublesome because of 1) its cooperation with Union of Good (pro-Hamas) charities, 2) the ties of its leaders to the Muslim Brotherhood; as the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report recently noted:

Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) is headquartered in the U.K. where one it’s trustees listed in U.K. charity records is Ibrahim El-Zayat, a leader in both the European and the German Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. El-Zayat is also a trustee of the U.K. branch of Islamic Relief. Islamic Relief Worldwide is also listed as a company in the U.K where records indicate that Dr. Ahmed Al-Rawi, the former head of the Federation of islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) and President of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) has been a director at one time. Both FIOE and the MAB are part of the U.K. and European Muslim Brotherhood. Another former director of the company Islamic Relief Worldwide is Issam Al-Bashir who, as previous posts have discussed, is a former Minister of Religious Affairs in the Sudan and who has held numerous positions associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood. In a number of European countries, the local branch of Islamic Relief is also tied to the local Muslim Brotherhood organization.

3) Pamela Geller recently alleged more concrete nefarious activity by IRW:

• “IRW received $50,000 from a front for Osama bin Laden in 1999, and has given millions to the jihadists in Chechnya.”
• “IRW official Iyaz Ali has admitted to aiding Hamas while serving as project coordinator at IRW’s Gaza branch in late 2005 and early 2006.”
• “The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs also noted:  ‘The IRW provides support and assistance to Hamas’ infrastructure.’”

But what is the precise legal and financial relationship between IRW and IR-USA?  IRW itself calls IR-USA a “fundraising partner” in a map they created to show their global reach:

Islamic Relief Worldwide's Map

IR-USA, obviously aware of the questionable status of IRW, goes out of its way on its website to describe itself as one of IRW’s “legally separate and independent affiliates (also referred to as ‘partner offices’).”
Nevertheless, IR-USA also applauds IRW as “the catalyst, coordinator and implementer of the Islamic Relief family’s relief and development projects around the globe”:

IR-USA's version of its IRW association

However, as we have noted before, Islamic Relief USA is one of Islamic Relief Worldwide’s largest non-governmental donors.  IR-USA gave $9.4 million to IRW in 2009, $5.9 million in 2008, and $4.8 million in 2007.
IR-USA can use lawyer-speak to prove that they’re legally separate entities, but money talks.  IR-USA wouldn’t simply give $20 million over a three-year period to an organization that it wasn’t close to.
*  A high-ranking Department of Justice official recently impugned Islamic Relief USA as a conduit for terrorist funds.
Additionally, the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report writes:

The IRUSA website identifies Dr. Yaser Haddara as a member of the IRUSA board since 2006 and its chairman until May 2011. According to his profile, Dr. Haddra has been active in the Muslim Society of America (MAS), the Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC). Previous posts have discussed the relationship between Islamic Relief USA and the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, an Islamic charter school with strong connections to the Muslim American Society (MAS). The MAS was established in 1993 by leaders of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and a Hudson Institute report has discussed the relationship of the MAS to both the Egyptian and U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. The same Hudson report also identifies ISNA as an important part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. Other posts have explored the Muslim Brotherhood ties of the MAC.

The evil: Jihad :: Jihad victims will bring Iran to account

Jihad victims will bring Iran to account

By JOANNA PARASZCZUK

08/09/2012 04:03

After court victory for ’83 barracks bomb victims, lawyer says forcing Tehran to pay billions will make cost of terrorism too high.

Photo: REUTERS/Stringer .

The lawyer representing victims of Hezbollah’s 1983 Beirut barracks bombing said on Wednesday that a recent court ruling ordering Iran to pay $167 million in damages was another step toward making it accountable for state-sponsored terrorism.
Virginia-based attorney Joseph Peter Drennan, representing the families of eight US marines killed in the bombing, told The Jerusalem Post that the judgment would teach Tehran that sponsoring terrorism was not only cowardly but also expensive.

Related:

• Iran rial sinks 5% as devaluation expected
• 'UK bank hid $250b. in Iran deals, may lose license'

“Our mantra has always been that the best way of fighting state-sponsored terrorism is to make the cost of that terrorism unacceptably high,” Drennan said.
The ruling in the case, known as Amy Battle Taylor et al v. Iran, is the latest in a series of courtroom victories for victims of the Beirut barracks bombing, which killed 241 US servicemen and wounded many others. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the US District Court for the District of Columbia first held Iran responsible for the bombing in 2007, and since then has ordered it to pay a total of $9.5 billion to victims in several lawsuits.
According to court documents, the 1983 Beirut bombing was the deadliest terrorist attack against the US prior to September 11, 2001, and the largest nonnuclear explosion that had ever been detonated. It destroyed the barracks building.
Evidence later showed that Hezbollah was responsible for the attack, which it perpetrated using massive technological and material support from Iran and its Intelligence and Security Ministry.
Under US law, victims of state-sponsored terrorism have a right to bring federal suit against foreign states that sponsor terrorist acts, via an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Ruling in the case, the full name of which is Amy Battle Taylor et al v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, Lamberth said that “sponsoring terrorism has become an expensive activity for Iran and its associates.
“The court applauds the plaintiffs’ persistent efforts to hold Iran accountable for its cowardly support of terrorism,” Lamberth continued.
“The court concludes that defendant Iran must be punished to the fullest extent legally possible for the bombing in Beirut on October 23, 1983. This horrific act impacted countless individuals and their families, a number of whom receive awards in this lawsuit.”
In March, the same court awarded $44.6m. in damages against Iran to plaintiffs Jeffrey P. O’Brien and Daniel Lane Gaffney, two American servicemen wounded in the bombing, and their family members.
One more case, Spencer v. Iran, is still pending in the court, and according to Drennan more claimants may be added.
In addition, another group of Beirut barracks bombing victims may file a separate suit at a later date, Drennan said.
“With these judgments, we see a real prospect of full accountability [against Iran] on the horizon,” he added.
Drennan, who described how he had taken many depositions in the suits against Iran including from mothers who lost their sons in the Beirut bombing, said that the pain and misery this and other terrorist attacks caused is “incalculable.”
“This is the reason that terror is employed by Iran as a political tool,” he said. “But through these lawsuits we intend that the Beirut bombing will stand out in history as being the terror act that sounded the death knell for state-sponsored terror.”
By ordering Iran to pay the victims not only compensation but also punitive damages – effectively a fine a court imposes on a defendant to deter similar acts – at a rate 3.44 times higher than the compensation awarded, the court makes terrorism a costly tool for Iran, Drennan said.
“These are significant punitive damages, and they have the effect of making the cost of state-sponsored terror unacceptable,” he added. “In the final reckoning, Iran will find that the ultimate cost of the bombing will far exceed any benefits it thought it got from this cowardly act.”
Although plaintiffs in the lawsuits have not been successful in seizing Iranian assets that could be used to pay the judgements, Drennan said this could soon change, noting that there is an emerging political consensus in the US that Iran should be held accountable for its terrorist acts.
The latest ruling against Tehran came shortly after Congress passed the Iran Sanctions Bill, which contains provisions that will make it easier for American victims of the Beirut barracks bombing to collect their judgments against Iran.
The bill includes a provision that will change part of federal law, allowing assets seized from the Iranian government to be allocated to victims of both the Beirut bombing and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 14 US airmen.
Victims and their families say they are hopeful that the bill will allow them to collect on their judgments against Iran, including from an account in Citibank in New York City, which they say holds almost $2b. in Iranian funds.
Luxembourg-based clearing house and bank Clearstream is allegedly holding around $2b. of Iranian debt-securities in that Citibank account.
Last August, the plaintiffs in one of the Beirut barracks bombing lawsuits, Peterson v.
Iran, sued Clearstream over the assets. The courts ordered the account to be frozen, a move that Clearstream, which denies holding money for Iran, has opposed.
“We await a final decision on our efforts to obtain turnover of the seized accounts, but we are cautiously optimistic that we will prevail,” Drennan said.
On the issue of whether the plaintiffs in the cases against Iran will find other sources of Iranian funds to attach against the court rulings, Drennan pointed to the recent report the New York State Department of Financial Services filed, which alleged that the UK’s Standard Chartered bank schemed with the Iranian regime to conceal more than $250b. in illegal transactions.
“The magnitude of the transactions involved suggest the existence of huge sums of cash that are being moved around the globe by Iran, that remain to be identified and secured to satisfy the judgement,” Drennan said.
“We will be relentless in pursuing justice for our clients.”

Source: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=280599