Talk:Islamic American Relief Agency

Fair use rationale for Image:Iara-usa.jpg
Image:Iara-usa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

IARA = Inter-Allied Reparations Agency
(after WW II) --Neun-x (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Misleading information about the IARA
The article claims "The money, sent to bank accounts in Peshawar, Pakistan, in 2003 and 2004, was masked as donations to an orphanage located in buildings that Hekmatyar owned." Given that the IARA has sent a lot of money to a lot of Islamic charities, what evidence is there that in this case they intended the money to support terrorist causes? As the article points out in a different section, "During sentencing, Judge Nanette Laughery concluded that IARA had no connection whatsoever with any terrorist organization or entity posing a threat to the United States by stating `This is not a case about somebody aiding a terrorist.' "

The reason I bring this up is that supporters of the recent travel ban are justifying the exclusion of all 37 million residents of Sudan from the US on the ground that the US has admitted a Sudanese terrorist. The acts of terror allegedly committed by this so-called terrorist, Abdel Azim El-Siddig, are conspiring with US Congressman Mark Siljander to "finance acts of terror" (which the Justice Department itself pointed out the day after Siljander's sentencing was an unsupported accusation) and failing to register as an agent of a foreign power. That's how plea bargains can turn a good samaritan with an Arab name into a terrorist.

I don't believe Wikipedia should be promulgating the post-9/11 paranoia that still reverberates today if it's going to be used to support a blanket travel ban on the 37 million residents of Sudan, a Sunni Muslim country whose only threat to the US is the pain of hearing in the US media about Sudan's brutal internal civil wars and ethnic cleansings prior to 2005. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)