Clinton Admits He Passed on Killing Bin Laden

clinton-450x337by :

In a memorably explosive 2006 interview with Chris Wallace, former President Bill Clinton went off on a finger-wagging “tear,” as Wallace put it, when questioned about whether he had done enough during his terms in office to get Osama bin Laden. “I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since,” growled a furious Clinton. Now a recently-released audiotape confirms that Clinton did indeed have at least one clear opportunity to kill the world’s most wanted man in 1998 – and passed on it, allowing bin Laden to live to mastermind the 9/11 attacks.

Last week Australian Michael Kroger, the former head of the Liberal Party in the state of Victoria, unveiled on Australia’s Sky News a never-before-released audio of Clinton speaking to a group of businessmen in Melbourne on September 10, 2001, recorded a mere ten hours before the first plane hit the World Trade Center. In that recording, made with the former president’s knowledge according to Kroger, Clinton responded thusly in response to a question about international terrorism:

And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s a very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once. I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.

Questioned by Fox News about the Clinton recording, Michael Scheuer, chief of the bin Laden unit from 1995 to 1999, replied that Clinton was a “disgrace” and a “monumental liar” for claiming that he didn’t kill bin Laden because of the collateral damage. He asserted that only Taliban and bin Laden and his crew would’ve died if Clinton had given the go-ahead for a missile strike on the region in December of 1998. But Clinton didn’t act, said Scheuer, because he’s a “coward morally” and because he’s “more concerned, like Obama, with what the world thinks about him.”

Read more at Front Page

Their 9/11 Role – The Taliban Five are even worse than you’ve heard

The Taliban’s Afghanistan “was the incubator for al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks,” the 9/11 Commission found. Another passage from the commission’s final report reads: “The alliance with the Taliban provided al Qaeda a sanctuary in which to train and indoctrinate fighters and terrorists, import weapons, forge ties with other jihad groups and leaders, and plot and staff terrorist schemes.”

MOHAMMAD FAZL

MOHAMMAD FAZL

BY THOMAS JOSCELYN:

One of the five senior Taliban leaders transferred to Qatar in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl played a key role in al Qaeda’s plans leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Mohammad Fazl, who served as the Taliban’s army chief of staff and deputy defense minister prior to his detention at Guantánamo, did not have a hand in planning the actual 9/11 hijackings. Along with a notorious al Qaeda leader, however, Fazl did help coordinate a military offensive against the enemies of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan the day before. And Osama bin Laden viewed that September 10 offensive as an essential part of al Qaeda’s 9/11 plot.

The 9/11 Commission found that the hijackings in the United States on September 11, 2001, were the culmination of al Qaeda’s three-step plan. First, on September 9, 2001, al Qaeda assassinated Northern Alliance commander Ahmed Shah Massoud in a suicide bombing. Massoud’s death was a major gift to the Taliban because he was their chief rival and still controlled parts of the country. The assassination was also intended to weaken opposition to the Taliban and al Qaeda within Afghanistan before the United States could plan its retaliation for the most devastating terrorist attack in history. The Northern Alliance did, in fact, play a role in America’s response.

The following day, September 10, al Qaeda and the Taliban took their second step. A “delayed Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance was apparently coordinated to begin as soon as [Massoud] was killed,” the 9/11 Commission found. Fazl and one of bin Laden’s chief lieutenants, Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, played key roles in this setup for 9/11. At the time, al Iraqi oversaw what al Qaeda called the Arab 55th Brigade, which was Osama bin Laden’s chief fighting force inside Afghanistan and fought side by side with Mullah Omar’s forces.

According to a leaked Joint Task Force Guantánamo (JTF-GTMO) threat assessment of Fazl, al Iraqi met with Fazl “on several occasions to include immediately following the assassination of [Massoud] in September 2001.” Al Iraqi “stated the Northern Alliance was demoralized after the assassination and [he] met with [Fazl] to immediately coordinate an attack with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance.”

Al Qaeda viewed both the assassination of Massoud and the offensive launched the following day as necessary components of the 9/11 plot. At first, Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders were said to be wary of any spectacular attack against the United States, as it would likely draw fierce retaliation from the world’s lone superpower. (The 9/11 Commission did find “some scant indications” that Omar “may have been reconciled to the 9/11 attacks by the time they occurred.”) The plan to attack the United States was controversial even within al Qaeda, with some senior leaders objecting to the idea.

But Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders believed, correctly, that the first two steps of their plan would ensure the Taliban’s continuing support. The 9/11 Commission found that as Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s military chief at the time, Mohammed Atef, “deliberated” the 9/11 hijackings “earlier in the year,” they “would likely have remembered that Mullah Omar was dependent on them for the Massoud assassination and for vital support in the Taliban military operations.” And, while the commission’s sources were “not privy to the full scope of al Qaeda and Taliban planning,” bin Laden and Atef “probably would have known, at least,” that the “general Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance” on September 10 “would rely on al Qaeda military support.”

The 9/11 Commission’s final report goes on to say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of 9/11, remembers Atef “telling him that al Qaeda had an agreement with the Taliban to eliminate Massoud, after which the Taliban would begin an offensive to take over [all of] Afghanistan.”

Mohammad Fazl’s cooperation with al Iraqi was, therefore, part of the plan KSM remembered.

As controversy over the deal for Sgt. Bergdahl has continued to swirl, current and former Obama administration officials have sought to draw a sharp distinction between the threat posed by the Taliban Five and al Qaeda.

“These five guys are not a threat to the United States,” former secretary of state Hillary Clinton said during an interview on NBC News last week. “They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody.”

Read more at Weekly Standard

9/11 Activist Burlingame: CAIR Targeting Me for Telling Truth

burlingameBy Bill Hoffmann:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations wants the sister of the pilot whose jet was crashed into the Pentagon by al-Qaeda hijackers axed from the board of the 9/11 Memorial Museum, claiming she equates Islam with terrorism — but Deborah Burlingame isn’t backing down. 

“I can’t even call them well-meaning because what they’re doing is very destructive,” Burlingame told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

“There is a long history of Islamic terrorism that goes back … centuries, but modern terrorism associated with Islam has been around all of our lives.

“Now we’re more aware of it post-9/11. To say that it is not in any way connected to Islam is to live in a state of denial, which is quite dangerous.”

CAIR is after Burlingame — sister of Capt. Charles “Chic” Burlingame, and co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America and Keep America Safe — labeling her as an Islamophobe for controversial tweets she wrote.

“When are citizens going to rise up and demand the govt. acknowledge that Islam is a transnational threat, that govt. denial is killing us,” Burlingame said in the missive.

In another, Burlingame said: “If someone calls U ‘Islamophobe’ for speaking truth, chances are they are member of Muslim Brotherhood, or on Obama’s Nat’l security team.”

“The statement I … made is considered somehow hateful and bigoted and I’m merely stating the obvious,” Burlingame told Malzberg.

The museum, which commemorates the four coordinated terror attacks against the United States on Sept. 11th, 2001, is standing by Burlingame.

“I’m very proud of my association with that foundation and that board and those people. It’s a wonderful group of people who have created one of the most important cultural institutions in our lifetime,” Burlingame said.

“I’m just starting the obvious and the people who are committing these crimes, these atrocities, are the ones who are telling us exactly who they are, exactly why they’re doing it, moreover, they’re pointing to specific passages in the Koran to justify their actions.”

Burlingame said CAIR is on a mission to try and separate Islam from a terrorist attack that everyone saw on live TV.

“The perpetrators … have gleefully announced their motives, all of which go right to the Koran and their religious beliefs. So it’s kind of like, me or your lying eyes? It’s astonishing to me,” she said.

Read more at Newsmax with video

**********

Here is Debra Burlingame’s interview with Megyn Kelly about this:

transcript HERE

9/11 Museum Film’s Critic Says Jews Killed Jesus

Keeping Faith with the 911 Fallen

Debra BurlingameCenter for Security Policy:

Today, the 9/11 Memorial Museum opens at the site of the worst single attack in our nation’s history. Dignitaries will mark the event with family members of the fallen.

One of the most formidable of the 9/11 family community is Debra Burlingame. She has become an internationally recognized advocate for freedom and opponent of the jihadists who murdered, among others, her brother, Chic, the pilot of the American Airlines plane flown into the Pentagon.

Thanks in large measure to Debra and the family members she represents, the new memorial – on whose board she serves – tells the truth about the Islamist supremacists who perpetrated this murderous act of jihad against innocent Americans and their country. We and posterity are indebted to them, not just for their sacrifice, but for their steadfast integrity.

9/11 Museum Refuses to Censor Al-Qaeda Film

sr-2-450x274by Deborah Weiss:

Amidst a barrage of controversy and criticism, the 9/11 museum officials stand firm in their decision to air a documentary on Al-Qaeda without censorship of Islam-related language.

The 911 Museum will open to the public on May 21, 2014, with a preview period for 9/11 families and survivors from May 15, 2014 to May 20, 2014.

Included is a 7-minute documentary titled, “[T]he Rise of Al-Qaeda.” It shows footage of Al-Qaeda’s journey over the prior several years on the way to 9/11, from its training camps to a series of terrorist attacks.  The film will be adjacent to a room displaying photos of the 9/11 hijackers.

The film portrays the 9/11 hijackers as “Islamists” who viewed their mission as a “deadly jihad.” After all, in the words of the hijackers: “[M]any thanks to Allah for his kind gesture and choosing us to perform the act of jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims.”  So, it was the hijackers themselves that believed they were on a jihadi mission for the cause of Islam.

The film has been thoroughly vetted and its accuracy is not in dispute.  But an advisory panel of interfaith clergy who previewed the film is complaining about the use of the words “Islamist” and “jihad,” insisting that the jihadists should be shown in a greater “context” that portrays most Muslims as peaceful.

Reverend Chloe Breyer (Justice Breyer’s daughter), who preaches at Saint Philips Church in Harlem, wants the video to show Islam as a peace-loving religion where only a few outliers like the 9/11 hijackers are violent.  She believes that the word “jihad” is an Islamic struggle to do good and that the film in its current form may justify bigotry or violence unless accompanied by a disclaimer.

Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the only Imam on the advisory panel, made a splash when he quit the panel in response to the film, stating that “unsophisticated visitors who don’t understand the difference between Al-Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading toward antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”  He went on to say that “the screening of the film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum.”

Akbar Ahmed, Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, protested that most museum visitors will assume that the language refers to all Muslims. He argues that one shouldn’t associate the terrorists with their religion because doing so implicates 1.5 billion Muslims by association.

John Esposito, an apologist for Islam at the Saudi-funded Prince Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, generally prefers the phrase “Muslim terrorism” to “Islamic terrorism” in order to dissociate the motivating ideology from the terrorist behavior, and instead give the impression that the terrorist conduct is just coincidently committed by Muslims.

Others want the museum to go out of its way to show Muslims mourning over the 9/11 attacks to “balance out” images of Islam.  Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for CAIR, a group which holds itself out as a Muslim civil rights organization but which in reality has many terrorist ties of its own, insisted that the film will reinforce “stereotypes” of Muslims as terrorists.  He emphasized: “it’s very important how Islam is portrayed.”

But the film is not about Islam.  The purpose of the museum is to educate the public on the events of 9/11, including who committed it and what their motivation was.  The focus should be on the atrocity that murdered almost 3000 people in cold blood, not a PC version of feel-good Islam.

Joseph Daniels, the museum’s Executive Director, said that museum officials “stand by the scholarship that underlies the creation of this video.”  NBC News Anchor, Brian Williams, who narrates the film explained, “[w]e have a heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective.”  He asserted that the film in no way smears a whole religion, but instead talks about Al-Qaeda, a terrorist group.  And, the film clearly acknowledges that Muslims were among the 9/11 victims, mourners, and recovery workers.

So the issue is how the terrorists are characterized and whether the public can discern the difference between Al-Qaeda and those who identify themselves as Muslim but are peaceful and law-abiding.

First, it is a fact that Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam motivated the 9/11 attacks.  To say that acknowledging Al-Qaeda’s motivational ideology indicts 1.5 billion Muslims is to say that all 1.5 billion Muslims agree with Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam.  If they do, they should be indicted. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be offended because the statements don’t apply to them.

Second, it’s unlikely that the Imam on the advisory panel speaks for all local and foreign Muslims, whom he claims to know will all be offended.  If all Muslims should be painted with this broad brush, then the offense is deserved.  If they are not a monolith, they shouldn’t be offended. On the contrary, they should be insulted that some unknown Imam thinks they can’t handle the truth.

Third, to claim that 9/11 or any other Islamic terrorist attack was just terrorism that incidentally was committed by Muslims is just a lie.  It is the terrorists, not the reporters, who assert that they are motivated by their faith.  Those who disagree with the terrorists’ interpretation of their faith should take it up with the terrorists, not those observing and reporting the facts.  The same goes for terrorists who are members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and others.

Fourth, CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in the history of the United States and has many terrorism ties.  It is on a mission to stamp out all criticism of anything Islam-related, even if it’s true.  Indeed, there’s nary a terrorist that CAIR doesn’t defend.  Asserting that the 9/11 hijackers were Islamic terrorists is factual reporting, not “stereotyping.”  But CAIR wants the public to believe that anybody except for Muslims can be terrorists.  Besides, CAIR has no credibility and should not be given legitimacy by accommodating its gripes.

Read more at Front Page

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the Washington Times. She is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” and the primary writer and researcher for “Council on American Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation”.

Imam Pushing to Sanitize 9/11 Museum’s Al-Qaida Film Slurs Jews

More secret 9/11 documents identified, but FBI has yet to turn them over to judge

BY DAN CHRISTENSEN AND ANTHONY SUMMERS:

Contradicting an earlier assertion made under oath by a senior FBI official, an attorney for the Justice Department said Wednesday that the FBI has identified four more boxes of “classified” 9/11 documents held by its Tampa field office.

The government, however, has yet to comply with a federal judge’s orders Friday that it turn over copies of that massive9/11 file — now said to total 27 boxes — for his personal inspection.

U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch issued those orders in a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by BrowardBulldog.org seeking records about the FBI’s investigation into apparent pre-9/11 terrorist activity in Sarasota.

In an email to the news organization’s attorney, Thomas Julin, Miami Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee said the government was prepared to file the documents with the court last Friday “as ordered.” The Justice Department, however, determined that Zloch’s chambers do not have a safe with “storage capability for classified documents.”

“The plan at present is to deliver the safe [which can hold four boxes] on Thursday, May 1, 2014, along with the first four boxes of classified materials,” Lee said. “When the court has completed its review of the four boxes, chambers will be contacted and I will deliver four more boxes, as well as retrieving the material already reviewed.”

Lee said, too, that he will deliver to the court on Friday CD ROMs containing scanned versions of the classified documents.

POSSIBLE DELAYS

The government’s piecemeal document delivery plan deviates substantially from Zloch’s orders, which require the production of photocopies of the FBI’s entire 9/11Tampa file all at once. If approved, it would delay the production of records to the judge for inspection by weeks or months.

The existence of four additional boxes of 9/11 records could add to any delay.

Lee’s disclosure about the additional four boxes calls into question the accuracy of the sworn declaration submitted to the court two weeks ago by FBI records section chief David M. Hardy.

Hardy told the court that the entire Tampa 9/11 “sub file” was “comprised of 23 boxes of records” including “a substantial, but undetermined amount of material classified at the ‘secret’ level.” Prosecutor Lee did not explain why the file is now said to be 27 boxes.
The FBI probe that is the focus of the Freedom of Information lawsuit focused on a Saudi family with tiesto the Royal Family and apparent connections to some of the 9/11 hijackers, including ringleader Mohamed Atta, and former Broward resident and currently suspected al Qaeda leader Adnan Shukrijumah.

Read more at Miami Herald

 

The 9/11 Museum Controversy and Sheikh Gameia: Recalling How Al-Azhar’s Then U.S. Emissary Reacted to the Jihad Carnage

download-11By Andrew G. Bostom:

Controversy has erupted just weeks before the May 21, 2014 formal opening of the 9/11 Museum beneath the World Trade Center Plaza. The source of this imbroglio is a brief documentary film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” which apparently confirms that the mass murderous September 11, 2001 attacks were motivated by the ideology of jihad. As the New York Times’ Sharon Offerman observed on 4/23/14:

The documentary is not even seven minutes long, the exhibit just a small part of the museum. But it has over the last few weeks suddenly become a flash point in what has long been one of the most highly charged issues at the museum: how it should talk about Islam and Muslims.

What Offerman alludes to as a “flash point” is actually a threadbare effort—linking the irrefragably jihadist organization Al-Qaeda, and Islam’s institution of jihad war—to push back against the relentless campaign of doctrinal and historical negationism waged by Muslim and non-Muslim apologists for Islam.

Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, who was interviewed by Offerman for her story, epitomizes this negationist trend in all its brazen hypocrisy. Ahmed opined,

The terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did. But when you associate their religion with what they did, then you are automatically including, by association, one and a half billion people who had nothing to do with these actions and who ultimately the U.S. would not want to unnecessarily alienate.

The namesake for Ahmed’s American University “Chair,” Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), was a seminal Muslim historian, and jurist, who wrote the following about jihad, summarizing six centuries of prior, well-established Islamic jurisprudence:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Ahmed’s strident, pseudo-academic disingenuousness, and the documentary film kerfuffle, notwithstanding, the 9/11 Museum’s exhibit also obfuscates the nexus between Islam, and the cataclysmic jihad terror attacks nearly 13 years ago. This guiding mentality of pious cultural relativism was made explicit by Joseph C. Daniels, President and CEO of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum:

What helps me sleep at night is I believe that the average visitor who comes through this museum will in no way leave this museum with the belief that the religion of Islam is responsible for what happened on 9/11.

Mr. Daniels and the entire 9/11 Museum organization must be made aware, repeatedly, of the following:

  • How Sheik Muhammad al-Gameia (Gamei’a) —who on September 11, 2001, was an Egyptian imam at the Islamic Cultural Center of New York, and the American emissary from Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the pinnacle of religious authority, and education, in Sunni Islam—characterized the 9/11 attacks, during an October 4, 2001 interview, in Egypt. (Original Arabic interview here; Translated extracts here)
  • Frank analyses of the doctrine and history of jihad, a living Islamic institution.
  • Data on contemporary global jihad terrorism, which validates this doctrinal and historical legacy of jihad, and provides the ongoing, expansive “context” for the Al-Qaeda-orchestrated carnage of 9/11/2001.

Moreover, Daniels and the 9/11 Museum should be consistently encouraged to add this material (and other similar materials) to future “updates” of the exhibit.

Since its founding in 973 C.E., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented the apogee of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam.Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Al-Gameia, the Al-Azhar University representative in the U.S., and Imam of the Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque of New York City, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, was interviewed for an Al-Azhar University website, on October 4, 2001. Sheikh Gameia returned to Egypt after September 11, 2001 alleging, without any substantiation, that he was being “harassed.”

Gameia’s interview (original Arabic; extracts translated here) was rife with conspiratorial Islamic antisemitism, which riveted upon his invocation of the central Koranic motifs of Jew-hatred. Al-Azhar’s representative to the U.S. melded this sacralized anti-Jewish bigotry to virulent calumnies against Americans, and threats to the U.S.—witless “dupes” of the Zionist Jews.

Read more at PJ Media

 

Attempting to Rewrite the History of September 11th

september-9-11-attacks-anniversary-ground-zero-world-trade-center-pentagon-flight-93-second-airplane-wtc_39997_600x450ACT! for America, By Brigitte Gabriel:

On May 21st, more than 13 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, the National September 11 Memorial Museum will open its doors to the public to make certain that Americans will never forget what happened that day.

Unfortunately, some are working to ensure that future generations of Americans never fully understand the attacks, which were the most deadly terrorist attacks in the history of the United States.

One of the exhibits in the museum will feature a 7-minute film called “The Rise of Al Qaeda.”

In that film, the Al Qaeda terrorists are referred to as “Islamists” who were waging “jihad” with the attacks upon America.

Those two words, “Islamists” and “Jihad” have caused a controversy, with a variety of critics calling for whitewashing the description of Al Qaeda and the attacks by sanitizing the museum commentary by removing those two words.

This would be a tragic mistake.

Despite the complaints, the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad” in no way suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or support violence. No serious analyst in his or her right mind would make such an assertion.

Nevertheless, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality, so it makes perfect sense to call Islamists “Islamists” and to call Jihad “Jihad.” After all, in World War II, Nazis were referred to as Nazis, because they themselves referred to themselves as such.

America’s enemies in the war on terror do NOT refer to themselves as “extremists,” “militants,” or “radicals.”

They refer to themselves as Jihadists and Jihadis.

Interestingly, critics on both sides of the issue seem to dislike the term “Islamist.” Apologists for organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood claim that the term too closely identifies Islam with “extremism.” Many in the countershariah and counterjihad movement say that the term “Islamist” is a term concocted in the West that has no meaning in the Islamic world.

Both are wrong.

The first known use of the term “Islamist” came from the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late dictator of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

Khomeini said: “We are neither capitalists nor communists. We are Islamists.”

There are many different definitions listed for the term “Islamist,” but that is not the point. The point is that one of the world’s most prominent Muslim leaders coined the term to describe the revolution he led. It is entirely proper for the 9/11 museum to use the term “Islamists” to describe Al Qaeda.

The same is true for the term “jihad.” There has long been a debate about the use of the term jihad, with Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as CAIR particularly objecting to its use to describe violent warfare or terrorism.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America aims to convince Americans that Jihad only means “to struggle” or, more specifically, an internal, personal struggle.

This is only partially correct and any campaign that claims that the term Jihad only means an internal, personal struggle amounts to disinformation. The dualistic nature of Islam, in this case as it applies to the meaning of “Jihad,” is well documented both in historical Islamic doctrine and in contemporary use of the term.

And Jihad definitely does not only mean an internal, personal struggle. In fact, the most widespread meaning of the term that is of particular interest to Westerners who are threatened by Jihad does in fact entail violence.

A false and misleading statement has been attributed to the San Francisco chapter head of CAIR, Zahra Billoo:

“A common misconception of the word jihad is that it means armed struggle or holy war, and that is something that has been perpetrated by many who’ve made careers out of pushing anti-Muslim sentiment.”

Such a meaning for Jihad has nothing to do with anyone with an “anti-Muslim sentiment.” It has everything to do with Islam itself.

Let us examine definitions of Jihad from two authoritative sources.

Jihad According to the Quran

The first is the Quran itself. In this case, specifically The Noble Qu’ran, translated into English by two scholars: Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, PhD, professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings at the Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia and Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan of the same institution. The Noble Qu’ran was published by Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has been catalogued by King Fahad National Library. On page 818, in a glossary accompanying the text of the Quran, The Noble Qu’ran provides the following definition of Jihad:

“Jihad: Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s Word superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam.”


Can the Quran itself be promoting “anti-Muslim sentiment” as CAIR’s Zahra Billoo asserts?

Jihad According to Shariah

Our second source is Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

Reliance of the Traveler is one of the world’s most widely read manuals of Shariah law. It has been endorsed by a variety of Islamic authorities, including Al Azhar University in Cairo, IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought) in Herndon, Virginia, the Fiqh Council of North America, the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces and the Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha in Damascus, Syria.

These can hardly be termed as those pushing “anti-Muslim sentiment” as Billoo claims.

On page 599 of Reliance of the Traveler, readers can find the following passage:

o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”


Jihad According to Terrorists

If Jihad truly means to “struggle” and not warfare to establish the religion, how does CAIR explain the names of all these terrorist organizations?

Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (Pakistan, Bangladesh, India)
Islamic Front for Armed Jihad (Algeria)
Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (Israel)
Islamic Jihad Organization (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Union (Uzbekistan)
Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Russia)
Laskar Jihad (Indonesia)
United Jihad Council (India)

So, it is completely appropriate for the 9/11 museum to use the term “jihadist” and “jihad” to describe Al Qaeda terrorists and their activity.

Conclusion

We suspect that the sensitivity expressed with regard to the 9/11 museum goes way beyond the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad.”

The fact is, our country has never truly come to terms with the role that Islam plays in Jihadist terrorism.

It would be great if there was truly no connection whatsoever between Islam and Jihad. But the reality is Jihad is a tenet of Islam.

As previously stated, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality. It makes no difference what Americans think about the stated motivations and doctrine behind the actions of Al Qaeda. The only thing that truly matters is what the leaders and members of Al Qaeda think about why they wage warfare.

The fact of the matter is, Al Qaeda justify their actions by invoking Islam and Allah:

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate,

The General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization Statement on the Succession of Sheikh Osama Bin Laden in the al-Qaeda Organization’s Command

With hearts that are satisfied with Allah’s ordainment, and assured of Almighty Allah’s promise and His good reward, the Islamic umma, the mujahideen in the al-Qaeda Organization, and in other groups received the news of the martyrdom of the reviver imam, the jihadist immigrant Sheikh Osama Bin-Muhammad Bin Laden, may Allah rest his soul in peace. We pray to the Almighty Allah to raise his rank and to reward him, on behalf of us and the Muslim umma, with the best of rewards.

Since jihad is continuing until the Day of Resurrection … the General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization announces, after completion of consultations, that Sheikh Dr Abu-Muhammad Ayman al-Zawahiri, may Allah guide him to success, has taken over command of the group…

Statement from Al Qaeda
Announcing Zawahiri as the
New leader of Al Qaeda after
Osama Bin Laden’s death


All these sins and crimes committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger and Muslims.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in every country in which it is possible to do it…

We, with Allah’s help, call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Leader of Al Qaeda


It would be a tragic mistake if the 9/11 museum was to erase the role that their Islamic faith played in the leadership and membership of Al Qaeda’s horrific actions on September 11th, 2001. 

CAIR, Allies Campaign to Cleanse Truth From 9/11 Museum

911 memorial ceremony

One of the chief reasons that CAIR is waging war against words like “jihad” and “Islamist” is because the group doesn’t want its ideology to be discussed and it certainly doesn’t want Americans to know that it and Al-Qaeda share the same overall Islamist ideology. Their disagreements are only about target selection, rhetoric and tactics.

By Ryan Mauro:

The interfaith allies of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) think the American people can’t handle the truth about the jihadist motivation behind 9/11. They condescendingly infer that Americans are so inclined towards anti-Muslim bigotry that the terms “Islamist” and “jihad” must not be heard at the 9/11 Museum.

The 9/11 Museum, opening May 21, includes a seven-minute video titled The Rise of Al-Qaeda hosted by veteran news anchor Brian Williams. The tape refers to the Al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks as “Islamists” who believed they were pursuing a jihad against the United States. These are two terms that American Islamists have tried to delete from the American lexicon or at least whitewash them to the point they become meaningless.

CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and five other Arab groups have issued a joint statement demanding the removal of the video. Both have Muslim Brotherhood origins and a history of pro-Islamist activism. They are joined by the Interfaith Center of New York and New York Disaster Interfaith Services who have their own separatejoint statement.

Islamists like CAIR draw other Muslims and non-Muslims to their side with the argument that these terms promote “Islamophobia,” as if Americans are so uneducated and prejudiced that they’ll automatically assume that all Muslims are Al-Qaeda sympathizers. Even if that were true, the 9/11 Museum goes to great lengths to debunk anti-Muslim stereotypes.

The museum spokesman said there are two exhibits that clearly show that Al-Qaeda is a “far fringe of Islam.” The New York Timesreports that the Museum has photos of Muslims mourning after the attacks, stories about Muslims who died in the attacks and testimony from Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman in U.S. history.

The museum’s executives had Princeton University Professor Bernard Haykel approve the script before making it a part of the site. He stands by the decision to approve the film because there is simply no honest way to explain the motivations of Al-Qaeda without mentioning jihad.

“The critics who are going to say, ‘Let’s not talk about it as an Islamic or Islamist movement,’ could end up not telling the story at all, or diluting it so much that you wonder where Al-Qaeda comes from,” he told the Times.

He’s right. CAIR and its allies are essentially saying that Americans can’t handle the truth, so they shouldn’t know it.

Read more at Clarion Project

From Lockerbie to 9/11: Iran is Let Off the Hook

timthumb (4)by Clare M. Lopez
Accuracy in Media
March 16, 2014

A documentary that aired 11 March 2014 on the Al-Jazeera America channel presented compelling new evidence that Iran and the Syrian-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Counsel (PFLP-GC) directed and carried out the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that crashed into Lockerbie, Scotland on 23 December 1988. “Lockerbie: What Really Happened?” presented formerly classified documents and never-before revealed accounts from two of the investigators in the case—American attorney Jessica De Grazia and her Scottish colleague, George Thompson—both of whom were part of the defense team for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan security official eventually convicted of planting the bomb.

Aware that Al-Jazeera America has its own agenda and that this story may just fit rather neatly into it this time, the evidence presented by credible sources nevertheless makes this documentary worth serious consideration. Other, especially U.S., media have tended rather consistently to pass over evidence of the Iranian regime’s long record of support for terrorism (both Shi’ite and Sunni), even when that support has involved American citizen deaths, as in the two cases presented here. This Al-Jazeera documentary diverges from that typical media coverage of Iran and so earns our attention.

In the documentary, De Grazia and Thompson discuss classified U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) cables they obtained and shared with Al-Jazeera, but never had the chance to present in court. Specifically, they document a March 1988 meeting in Malta among representatives of Hizballah, Iran, Libya, PFLP-GC, and Syria. According to a protected source who attended the gathering, this apparently disparate group found common cause in hatred for Israel and the U.S., and met to discuss general cooperation in targeting Americans and Israelis. The Iranians were willing to direct terror operations, but wanted both the fig leaf of deniability that proxies could provide as well as the demonstrated explosives expertise for which both Hizballah and PFLP-GC were known. Syria long has allowed PFLP-GC to keep its headquarters in Damascus.

The collaborative arrangement that began with that meeting in Malta received its first operational assignment shortly after the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Persian Gulf on 3 July 1988, with the loss of all 290 on board. Although the U.S. insisted the tragedy was due to misidentification of the Iranian plane and ultimately paid more than $100 million in compensation, a high-level Iranian defector reported that the Iranian regime nevertheless decided to seek revenge in kind, and quickly, by shooting down a similar U.S. civilian aircraft with a like number of passengers on board.

Abolghassem Mesbahi ran operations for the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) in Europe before he defected to Germany in the early 1990s. His testimony about Lockerbie is especially credible because he also has testified in other cases involving Iranian complicity in terror attacks, including the Paris assassination of former Iranian Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar in 1991, the 1992 Mykonos Cafe assassination of Kurdish leaders in Berlin, and the 1994 bombing of the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires. Mesbahi was one of three Iranian defector witnesses in the Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al. legal case, in which Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York Federal District Court ruled in December 2011 that Iran and Hizballah “materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.” (The author was an expert witness for the Havlish legal team and co-authored one of the affidavits, which is cited herein.)

Mesbahi’s original 1996-97 Lockerbie testimony (as well as his more recent contribution to this newer documentary) is further bolstered by striking parallels in his later recorded testimony in the Havlish case. As described to the Havlish legal team, the Iranian regime’s efforts to galvanize pan-Islamic unity to attack U.S. and Israeli interests did not begin with the 1988 meeting in Malta, but rather a couple of years earlier, in the mid-1980s, during the depths of the Iran-Iraq war. It was then that the plan known among Iranian intelligence circles as “Shaitan Dar Atash” (“Satan in the Flames” or “Satan in Hell,” meaning America, known as the “Great Satan,” in the flames). Because it was acknowledged that Iran lacked the military power to confront the U.S. directly, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and MOIS were tasked with devising asymmetric means to destroy America. According to Mesbahi, the IRGC and MOIS discussed ways of attacking the U.S. critical infrastructure (electric, fuel, water distribution, etc.) and using civilian aircraft as “bombs inside U.S. cities” such as New York and Washington, D.C. The ultimate intent was to bring down the U.S. economy.

Efforts to unify the Islamic world across Shi’ite-Sunni sectarian lines redoubled after Iran’s revolutionary leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, died in 1989. In the early 1990s, when Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri were living under the protection of Sudan’s pan-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood leadership, President Omar al-Bashir and Hassan al-Turabi, his sometime political ally, organized a gathering of jihadist forces from across the Islamic world. The various Palestinian factions, including the PFLP-GC, plus Hizballah and the Iranian leadership all attended. It was in Khartoum that then-Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani offered bin Laden the explosive expertise of Imad Mughniyeh, his top Hizballah terror operative. That is the partnership, which endures to this day, that led eventually to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the wake of the July 1988 shoot-down of Iran Air flight 655, Iranian planners turned to PFLP-GC operatives who had made a name for themselves with several prior airliner attacks. According to De Grazia and Thompson, the DIA documents identify four PFLP-GC members who were involved in the Lockerbie plot: Ahmed Jibril, the PFLP-GC leader who possibly masterminded the attack; Hafez Dalkomoni, who led the German-based PFLP-GC cell suspected of involvement; Marwan Khreesat, a Jordanian master bomb-maker who may have made the bomb used on Pan Am Flight 103; and Abu Talb, the Egyptian-born leader of PFLP-GC’s Swedish cell, who is suspected of having couriered the Lockerbie bomb. German security forces were monitoring the Dalkomoni cell and arrested both him and Khreesat in October 1988, but a bomb found in Dalkomoni’s car was an exact match for the one that later brought down the Pan Am airplane. Both bombs were covered in Toblerone chocolate candy wrappers and concealed inside a Toshiba cassette player. Other bombs were discovered in Dalkomoni’s apartment, but the Germans recovered only a total of four out of five of the bombs they knew existed. The fifth exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 23rd.

By the following summer of 1989, the British and Scottish investigators were ready to issue arrest warrants for fifteen PFLP-GC members they had identified as connected with the attack. According to investigators De Grazia and Thompson, the case was for all intents and purposes solved; all involved with it (including American, British, German, and Scottish intelligence and security representatives) were in agreement that the PFLP-GC had carried out the attack on orders from the Iranian regime.

And then, sometime in mid-1989, according to former CIA operative Robert Baer, President George H.W. Bush made a phone call to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and asked her to back off the case against PFLP-GC. In the Al-Jazeera America film, Baer claims that the U.S. government made an executive decision that the role played by the PFLP-GC (and by extension, its sponsors in Damascus and Tehran) would be quietly submerged and instead, the Libyans would be made the sole scapegoats. After that, the Lockerbie prosecution went after Megrahi and the Libyans, eventually convicting Megrahi, who spent eight years in a Scottish prison before being released on humanitarian grounds, dying in 2012 of cancer.

It is difficult to know why U.S. leadership decided to protect the PFLP-GC and Iranian regime, when all the investigative work had been done and all the evidence pointed strongly at their responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. Gathering tensions with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein over his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs and the perceived need for Syrian support and, at a minimum, a pledge of non-interference from Iran may have been part of it. In the final analysis, though, Iran still has not been held to account: not for the murder of 270 people, mostly Americans headed home for Christmas, over Lockerbie, Scotland, and not for the nearly 3,000 killed on 11 September 2001. It is time that Iran is brought to account for its crimes against humanity.

Operative details al Qaeda plans to hit planes in wake of 9/11

Saajid Badat

Saajid Badat

By CNN Terrorism Analyst Paul Cruickshank:

Within weeks of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Osama bin Laden was planning follow-up operations to bring down airliners in the United States and south-east Asia, according to a convicted al Qaeda operative testifying in a terror trial in New York.

Saajid Badat was speaking via a video deposition from the United Kingdom, where he is serving a jail sentence for his role in plotting to blow up a U.S. bound aircraft in December 2001.

It’s the first time that an al Qaeda operative has provided such detail about plans to bring down airliners in the wake of 9/11.

Badat testified that a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, he met with Abu Hafs al Masri, then bin Laden’s right hand man, in the Jalalabad-Kabul area in Afghanistan.

“Abu Hafs asked me to take an explosive device onboard an airplane, a domestic airline [in the United States] and then detonate it,” Badat testified. He was then called to meet bin Laden himself.

“It was just the two of us in the room and he explained to me his justification for the mission,” said Badat.

“He said that the American economy is like a chain. If you break one link of the chain, the whole economy will be brought down. So after September 11th attacks, this operation will ruin the aviation industry and in turn the whole economy will come down,” he added.

Badat was then told to pick up two explosive shoes from an al Qaeda bomb-maker named Fathi. The explosives, he said, were concealed in the soles.

The idea was for him and Richard Reid, a British operative who came to be known as the “Shoe Bomber,” to blow up different planes simultaneously.

Reid tried to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001.

Before leaving Afghanistan in late November, Badat said he and Reid met with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

“It was as if he was giving me final orders,” Badat testified.

“He just gave us advice on how to interact with each other, how to contact each other,” he said, adding that the communication between him and Reid was to be via e-mail.

When Badat arrived in the United Kingdom in December he said he got cold feet, fearing going through with the operation and the possible implications for his family. He described how he dismantled the shoe bomb he had brought with him and stored it in his parents’ house.

On December 14, 2001, he e-mailed his Pakistani handler to tell him he was backing out.

Badat now feels he and others were manipulated by al Qaeda’s top leadership.

During his video deposition he stated he was ready to testify against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other top leaders to expose the hollowness of what he called their “bulls**t cause.”

Badat, who joined al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2000, was testifying at the trial in New York of Adis Medunjanin, an American of Bosnian descent charged with involvement in a plot to explode bombs on the subway in September 2009. Though the two never met, Badat met at least one al Qaeda member Medunjanin is alleged to have encountered.

**********

Badat described meeting several times in Afghanistan with Adnan Shukrijumah, an American al Qaeda operative. At the time he knew the American as “Jaffar.” Shukrijumah, he stated, never had any knowledge of the shoe bombing plot.

 Adnan Shukrijumah

Adnan Shukrijumah

U.S. authorities allege that Shukrijumah helped orchestrate the 2009 plot to attack New York subways and met Medunjanin in a camp in South Waziristan in September 2008. They say Shukrijumah has emerged as a senior operational planner for the network and is still believed to be at large in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.

Read more at CNN

Also see:

NATIONAL DISGRACE: 9/11 MUSEUM TO CHARGE $24 ADMISSION

Sept-11-memorial-APby PAMELA GELLER:

Joe Daniels, President and CEO of the 9/11 Memorial and Museum, has announced a $24 mandatory admission fee for the 9/11 Memorial.

It’s a museum, not a movie. It’s a memorial, not a theme park.

What do they charge at Gettysburg? Pearl Harbor?

Salaries at the “non-profit” 9/11 Memorial and Museum are obscene. This allegedly non-profit organization is supposed to be a tribute to 9/11 victims. “It was built to tell the story of 9/11 to future generations about the worst day in American history. It was never intended to be a revenue-generating tourist attraction with a prohibitive budget and entrance fee.”

Daniels’s salary was last reported to be $371,307. He received huge raises for three years running. As far back as 2009, there were no fewer than eleven staffers at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum who each made more than $170,000. Four had salaries higher than $320,000.

What did they do with the billion dollars it took to build this underground museum morgue? There is nothing in the Memorial and Museum that addresses the ideology behind the attack. A billion-dollar memorial to the September 11th attacks on the homeland, and it censors the motive. There is nothing in the Memorial and Museum that addresses the ideology behind the attack. The museum does not properly explain to the visitors that the attacks were committed in the name of Jihad, or Islamic “holy war” against the West.

No jihad or Islam. Devastating.

The worst thing is that once you are inside the museum, you will see that the pictures of the attackers are more prominently displayed than the pictures of some of the victims.

This leads one to think: do the organizers of the museum want to pay tribute to the attackers, or what?

My organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), held a press conference on September 11, 2013 to protest this outrage. (You can see details here and video and photos here.) Among the speakers was 9/11 family member Nelly Braginsky, who lost her only son Alec on 9/11. She told me recently: “The museum must be free. Families cannot afford $24. They should be able to see what happened to their country.” Travel and parking tolls are exorbitant. Who can spend that kind of money? Braginsky asked: “Why do they need 64 people to run the museum? At what salary? How many people are working? What are they doing all day? Where is the money? Five people would be enough. The salaries are enormous. Why not have students intern at the museum?”

Then there is all this talk about 9/11 being a “day of service” instead of a day of grieving. That, too, was contemptuous of our pain and loss. Why not make the museum a “service” institution, and students from across the country can volunteer their time and energy to man it? Instead, the leftist executives running the museum pays themselves enormous salaries, remove any mention of the motive behind this attack on our country, and demand that September 11 be about “service.”

Valentina Lygina, whose son Alexander was at work on the 74th floor of the second tower on the 74th floor when he was murdered by Islamic jihadists on September 11, 2001, was just as outraged as Braginsky was. And Sally Regenhard, who lost her only son, firefighter Christian, said that the $24 charge was a disgrace, “designed to maintain bloated salaries for stuffed suits and fat cats at Ground Zero.”

Regenhard’s organization, 9/11 Parents & Families of Firefighters and WTC Victims, issued a statement saying that it “strongly disagrees with charging a large admission fee, and also disagrees with expecting federal, state and local governments to pay the tab with no fiscal restraints, while 9/11 Memorial Museum executives give themselves plush raises every year, along with large expense accounts.”

Regenhard said:

The current executives at the 9/11MM have outrageous six-figure salaries, some over $400 thousand dollars per year, They have also announced a $63 million dollar bloated annual budget. This is totally out of control! A mandatory $24 dollar admission fee will just serve the purpose of helping to pay these huge salaries and ensure that the ‘tale of two cities’ will continue, as the rich will visit the museum, but the poor and middle class families won’t be able to afford it. Unfortunately, there is no fiscal responsibility or accountability at this site.

In the park, you can walk around and see only one American flag. That’s as if the architects of the park are ashamed of being American. Then the museum: if you want to properly pay tribute to the victims, you have to visit the museum as well, for the remains of unidentified victims have all been located here. So to mourn for these innocents, you have to pay!

Read more at Breitbart

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

Allahu Akbar and Ho Ho Ho

by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog:

“A flag bearing a crescent and star flies from a flagpole in front of the World Trade Center, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah.”

New York Times, 1997

Christmas at World Trade CenterIn 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi, the head of the Arab-American Committee and the National Council on Islamic Affairs, lobbied to have a crescent and star put up at the World Trade Center during the holiday season. His wish was granted, despite the fact that he had been an adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman also known as the Blind Sheikh.

In the name of diversity and political correctness, an adviser to the religious leader behind the World Trade Center bombing, was allowed to plant an Islamic symbol of conquest in the very place that had been bombed.

Long before the Ground Zero Mosque was even a twinkle in the eye of aviolent ex-waiter and a slumlord Imam, the World Trade Center allowed Mohammed T. Mehdi to bully it into flying the symbol of Islam.

By 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi had become an unambiguously ugly public figure. He had been fired by Mayor Dinkins in 1992 for anti-Semitic remarks. The year before he had proclaimed that, “Millions of Arabs believe Saddam stands tall having defied Western colonialism“.

In 1995, the US Attorney’s Office in New York had listed Mehdi as anunindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sheikh Rahman. Mehdi had already published a book titled “Kennedy and Sirhan: Why?”, which contended that Robert Kennedy’s assassin had been acting in self-defense.

Because of Mehdi’s role in actively working on behalf of the Sheikh behind the wave of terrorism that included the original attack on the World Trade Center, turning down his request should have been a no-brainer. Instead in the winter of 1997 there was an Islamic star and crescent at the World Trade Center. And another one at the park in front of the White House.

Four years before the September 11 attacks; both targets had already been marked.

The previous year had marked the first annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department, integrating the Islamic celebration into the Clinton Administration’s schedule of events. Bill Clinton had not visited the World Trade Center after the bombing, but he did make time for Ramadan.

A month after 9/11, Bush went Clinton one better when he became the first president to host a Ramadan dinner at the White House. Many of the Muslim ambassadors at the event were representing countries that helped finance Al Qaeda. Little more than a month after September 11, the President of the United States sat down to break bread with the money men behind the attacks.

The Star and Crescent flying at the World Trade Center did not prevent it from being targeted in a second greater attack four years later. Nor did the Ramadan dinners keep the plane headed for the White House at bay. It took the self-sacrifice of its American passengers to do that. Instead every gesture of appeasement only seemed to make it worse.