(No, TPW, I didn't decline to cite sources because I made them up, but just because it's just common knowledge that terrorist groups use legitimate charities as fronts and you're such a butt-wipe that it wasn't worth my time to even do a quick search to find the obvious.)But, it's a new day, I have a little more energy for frivolous searchs, so I'll do a little of your work for you.
Interesting personal attack, again, Marky-poo.
Considering that posting references, sources, cites, etc., only substantiates claims, you hold a strange resistance to that. Me thinks there's a whole lot of trouble going on over there in Marky-poo's head, and that you've given us way too much information on that trouble already.
Could it be that these sources hold some interesting thread that can and should be pulled, unraveling somebody's cover story? Let's look, shall we?
We seem to have the FBI claiming that these terrorists ebb and flow in and out of the country as heads of charitable organizations here and back out to become heads of Islamic militant jihad groups. And we seem to have a former National Security Council member claiming that its a common as dirt to have money donated to Islamic charitable organizations go directly to fund terrorism.
Absolutely no specifics are given, though, on the charitable organizations. Don't we think this is an interesting tidbit to leave out? And isn't it interesting that the heads of these charitable organizations and their staff appear to have been shown to be linked with certain terrorists and their organizations for at least 6 years, and still there is no mention of the specific charitable organizations?
What is the purpose of stories that challenge the integrity of specific charitable organizations, but fail to mention the particulars, like which ones?
What is the purpose of stories that publish that money intended for widows and orphans are really going for bombs and bullets, and not reveal those outlets? These outlets are apparently known quite well to those individuals releasing this information about them. And yet, no mention of the organizations' particulars.
Wouldn't getting the truth out to the public so that they can stop giving money, i.e., funding the bombs and bullets, be a priority here? I would've thought so. But apparently, it isn't. Which begs the question -- WHY?
Sorry, Marky-poo. These stories have a propoganda taint to them.
If you can provide better sources, e.g., ones that actually cite the specific charitable organizations, I might be amenable to changing my opinion. Otherwise, this just looks like another snow job, courtesy of the USG.
Too late, baby. We already know everything we need to know about you.
Now move along. There's nothing more to see here.
Mark W.