Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

How To Fool NPR

Posted by Phoenix Woman on June 7, 2010

This morning on NPR, I got to hear a story about how the French have linked IHH, the Turkish aid group that organized both the Gaza flotillas, to (gasp!) al-Qaeda!!!!!

(Pause for Dramatic Prairie Dog.)

This is a rehash of the same June 2 IDF allegations that the IDF had already partially rolled back four flipping days ago but which NPR’s crack staff apparently didn’t know or care were rolled back. Here’s the skinny on that:

Not content to believe that night vision goggles signal membership in Al Qaeda, reporter Lia Tarachansky of The Real News Network and I called the IDF press office to ask for more conclusive evidence. Tarachansky reached the IDF’s Israel desk, interviewing a spokesperson in Hebrew; I spoke with the North America desk, using English. We both received the same reply from Army spokespeople: “We don’t have any evidence. The press release was based on information from the [Israeli] National Security Council.” (The Israeli National Security Council is Netanyahu’s kitchen cabinet of advisors).

“But but but what about the French intelligence report!”, you may ask. Turns out that there was no such thing — just another example of IDF disinfo, one that was planted and then “laundered” via several steps to look like actual fact, and depending on the laziness and/or fearfulness of American journalists to survive.

Here’s the long and twisted tale of how it came to be:

To support its claim that the IHH is an Islamist group, New Ship… cites to a 1 June Washington Post article, which has only the following to say about the IHH:

Flotilla organizers, from the Turkish nongovernmental organization IHH, or Humanitarian Relief Fund, said they were transporting 6,000 tons of cement, more than 2,000 tons of iron, 100 prefabricated houses, 500 wheelchairs, medical equipment, wood and glass for building, electric generators and food.

Real bad dudes, clearly. It bears repeating that this is the only reference to the IHH in the article, which does not even assert, let alone prove, that the IHH is an “Islamist group”. While this might give a critical reader cause to question the honesty of New Ship… [the Israeli press release making the assertions] as a whole, the press release was not written for critical readers.

Later on in New Ship…, additional sources are cited for the claim that:

In 2006, a study conducted by the Danish Institute for International Studies showed that the IHH was involved in planning an al-Qaeda attack againstLos [sic] Angeles International Airport in 1999. The IHH reportedly acquired forged documents, enlisted operatives and delivered weapons to al-Qaeda in preparation for the attack, which was ultimately foiled.

The Danish study also cites a French intelligence report which stated that in the mid-1990s the IHH sent a number of operatives into war zones in Muslim countries to get combat experience. The report said that the IHH transferred money and “caches of firearms, knives and pre-fabricated explosives” to Muslim fighters in those countries.


Strangely enough, New Ship… does not link to the Danish study, which is available online, but to a page on the website of the Israeli Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center, headed up by Col. (ret.) Reuven Erlich, which describes itself as “an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community”. The page, which is replete with assertions and devoid of direct quotes or anything else in the way of substantiation, also does not link to the Danish study, though it does provide an image of the title page and of part of a paragraph from the relevant section (without reproducing the source citations). Those interested can find the report at:

http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS%20WP%202006-7.web.pdf (page 15)

The evidence for the claim that the IHH was “involved in planning an Al-Qaeda attack againstLos Angeles [sic] International Airport in 1999” is that a French magistrate by the name of Bruguière “testified that IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’” in the plot.  

The ”French intelligence report” supporting the remainder of the claim turns out to be a motion filed in a French court: “Requisitoire [sic] Definitifaux [sic] aux Fins de Non-Lieu. De Non-Lieu partiel. De Requalification [sic]. De Renvoi devant le Tribunal Correctionnel, de mantien [sic] sous Controle [sic] Judiciaiare [sic] et de maintien en Detention [sic]” (Final Motion Concerning Dismissal, Partial Dismissal, Reclassification, Remand to the Criminal Court, Continued Judicial Supervision, and Continued Detention). This is, it bears emphasising, the only source cited for these claims in the Danish think tank’s report.

In other words, apart from grossly falsifying a press report, the press release cites the website of a think tank connected to the Israeli intelligence community, which itself cites no sources except for a Danish think tank’s report that bases the claims on an unsupported assertion by a French judge and moving papers filed in court, which the press release helpfully misrepresents as an “intelligence report”. QED.

The Lesson for Today: Never take any US mainstream media report on people the IDF doesn’t like at face value.

Contact NPR and ask them why they’re airing blatant, bald-face bogosities that even IDF has had to walk back.

(Crossposted at DailyKos.)

10 Responses to “How To Fool NPR”

  1. jo6pac said

    Yep more news you can believe in, they have taken over foxs place on the radio waves. I still have a lot of friends that listen to npr and believe they are still a real news outlet. Sad

  2. Charles II said

    I don’t think this story is as simple as the laundering of Israeli disinformation. The Danish report, actually a report by Evan Kohlmann is worth reading. Bruguiere testified at the Millennium Plot trial, and stated under oath that IHH helped supply forged documents. There are other allegations that I would take seriously, including charges of weapons trafficking and contacts with (pre-911) jihadists.

    Now, Kohlmann’s piece is a prosecutor’s brief. It deserves to be examined, but not swallowed uncritically. That is what NPR is guilty of. In addition, even if one does accept Kohlmann’s thesis, that doesn’t prove much about the aid shipment to Gaza, which is what Morning Edition was trying to use it for.

    • Even the US State Department admits it has no proof the IHH is assisting any terrorist groups (http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=59501):

      “Regarding the accusations, U.S. Department of State’s spokesman Philip Crowley said, ‘we know that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us. That said, the IHH has not been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States.’

      The U.S. could not validate IHH’s connections with al-Qaida, he added.”

      As for the judge — we only have the judge’s unsupported word. It wasn’t “French intelligence”, it was an allegation for which no evidence was provided, per Hendrick:

      The ”French intelligence report” [cited on p. 15 of the Danish study PDF] supporting the remainder of the claim turns out to be a motion filed in a French court: “Requisitoire [sic] Definitifaux [sic] aux Fins de Non-Lieu. De Non-Lieu partiel. De Requalification [sic]. De Renvoi devant le Tribunal Correctionnel, de mantien [sic] sous Controle [sic] Judiciaiare [sic] et de maintien en Detention [sic]” (Final Motion Concerning Dismissal, Partial Dismissal, Reclassification, Remand to the Criminal Court, Continued Judicial Supervision, and Continued Detention). This is, it bears emphasising, the only source cited for these claims in the Danish think tank’s report.

      About the only thing not addressed here is the alleged 1997 Turkish raid — though that brings up the question whether, if the group really was a supporter of Islamic-rooted terror, why Turkish authorities would not have immediately suppressed the group. People need to remember that Turkey, until fairly recently, enforced secularization and Westernization with a fairly heavy hand. If the Turkish authorities, especially in 1997, really thought that IHH was allied with Islamic terror groups — one of whose identifying characteristics is a searing hatred of Western-looking, officially secular Turkey — they would not have been allowed to operate in Turkey, period.

      • Charles II said

        I largely agree with you. There’s a little smoke, but a lot of effort has produced no evidence of fire. We have to expect that in a predominantly Islamic country, there will be some Islamists who are involved with terrorism. But by the lazy, sloppy standards applied by NPR, the Christian church should be declared a terrorist organization because some of its members are.

        My point is that one has to go back to the original source and evaluate it dispassionately. Elise Hendrick, who you rely on to carry the narrative, is a polemicist. That’s not bad, it just means that one has to sift what is said very carefully. The judge testified under oath at a trial. That is significant, and she should have mentioned it. The arrest of the president of IHH, Bulent Yildrim even if it was ca. 15 years ago, is significant. Kohlmann does not mention trials/convictions, which is interesting, because the same guy was on the Yavi Marmara. Surely that would not be the case had he been convicted of anything.

        The best rhetorical presentation takes the opponent’s argument and demonstrates that even if everything alleged were true, it would not prove the case. Understanding the opponent’s argument is essential to refuting it.

  3. jo6pac said

    This was at FDL just a few minutes ago and did they take it down?

    • jo6pac said

      Failed search the first time, sorry most be the tubes are full of muck the first time I guess.

  4. LanceThruster said

    Th effectiveness of memes is based on its “truthiness”. It doesn’t have to *be* true, it only has to *sound* true when loaded into the echo chamber.

  5. Just to respond to the notion that I’m a “polemicist”, and that that somehow discredits me (advanced by someone, I might add, who I doubt has actually read more than one article of mine):

    You don’t have to take my word for it. Unlike the Israeli propagandists who made these allegations, I ACTUALLY MAKE THE SOURCE DIRECTLY AVAILABLE. Even though the Danish think-tank report was available in full text online, the Israel Project declined to link to the full text, and for good reason. The report is actually a fairly sloppy piece of work that is based largely on innuendos, unsupported assertions, and sources that don’t add up.

    If you look at the citation on the page where the Al-Qaeda allegations are contained, which I’ve cited directly, you’ll find that there are only two sources cited for the relevant allegations: the unsupported assertions of Bruguière (which prove only that Bruguière has made allegations – no corroboration is provided) and a pleading that has been misrepresented in the media as an “intelligence report”, which it quite patently isn’t, as is obvious to anyone who understands French (the author of the Danish report, judging from the rather bizarre spellings, etc., does not). To call the Danish think tank’s report a “prosecutor’s brief” would be insulting to any prosecutor with a modicum of pride in her work product.

    In short, you don’t have to trust me. You just have to look at the evidence that Israel’s apologists themselves refer to.

    Assuming the evidence is true is a valid technique when you’re challenging the conclusions. That was not the idea here. The idea was to determine whether there was any evidence at all. There isn’t, unless we take soundbites from uncorroborated assertions (under oath or not) and pleadings filed in court as self-authenticating.

    • Charles II said

      The point that you’re a polemicist, Élise, is proven by how you took my statement, “Elise Hendrick, who you rely on to carry the narrative, is a polemicist. That’s not bad…” and turned that into “Just to respond to the notion that I’m a “polemicist”, that that somehow discredits me …”. Same thing with my calling the Danish report a “prosecutorial brief,” i.e., a highly selective reading of the evidence. You’ve taken plain words and read your own interpretation them in plain sight. This is what polemicists do.

      It should also be clear from what I have posted that I did look up the Danish report. I take it seriously when any officer of the court testifies under oath, especially in a venue like the Millenium Plot trial. It doesn’t make the allegation true, but it does mean the evidence deserves to be considered. This is especially true considering who Bruguiere is. , the man who identified the Millennium bomber as a threat before the plot unfolded. You blurred out the fact that this was sworn testimony, characterizing it as an “assertion”.

      You may have also made the logical error of thinking that the mention of Bruguiere’s testimony in the, as you call it, “sloppy” Danish report somehow discredits Bruguiere’s testimony. It does not. While it would be interesting to read the testimony, Bruguiere has spoken on the record, making it clear that his knowledge is not current, but expressing an informed opinion that the former links should be taken seriously.

      The more I read about this, the more I agree with him, and the less I agree with you.

      I confess to reading no more than one of your articles, and may well be the wiser for it.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.