Another Day, Another Jihad Plot in America

ACT! For America, By Brigitte Gabriel:

Something scary happened on Friday the 13th, but you’d hardly have noticed from the news reports.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force in Wichita, Kansas, arrested a 58-year old airport employee in a plot to carry out a suicide bombing at the city’s Mid-Continent Airport.

download (42)The man, Terry Lee Loewen, was a white convert to Islam who authorities say became “radicalized” over the Internet.

Loewen planned to drive a vehicle laden with explosives onto the airport and explode it—and himself—at the terminal where hundreds of unsuspecting travelers went about their normal business.

Luckily, the FBI had intercepted Loewen and his vehicle contained only dummy explosives planted by an FBI agent that Loewen believed to be a collaborator.

This plot received a great deal of exposure on the Drudge Report, but none of the major news agencies thought it worthy of an email news bulletin—except for Fox News.

A plot like this would have stopped the presses just 15 years ago. Today, it’s just another news story on a busy news day. In another week or so, very few people outside of Kansas will even remember Terry Lee Loewen’s name, or that he was arrested for attempting to carry out mass murder in the name of Jihad. America is becoming desensitized to jihadi terrorism and that is unfortunate. Islamic Jihad is becoming a customary part of our everyday lives.

What is frightening about the homegrown terrorism that we’ve been seeing the last few years is that those terrorists—or would be suicide bombers—seem to be normal Americans.

Loewen lived in a quiet, middle class, suburban neighborhood in a modest, one-story ranch-style home. In the local newspaper The Wichita Eagle, his neighbors described him as “normal:”

Constance Reed and her daughter, Kyia, lived down the street from Loewen on the 3900 block of East Funston in southeast Wichita.

“I can’t believe it,” said her daughter, Kyia. “We just went trick or treating down there a month or so ago. It’s a normal house, normal decorations. We saw him and his wife; both normal people.”

Americans need to understand that this is the pattern—not the exception—when it comes to the homegrown Jihadist terrorists. They don’t stand out—by design. In my first book Because They Hate, I discuss watching a news interview of Mohammad Atta’s landlord. Atta as you recall was the 9/11 terrorist attack’s ringleader. To hear the landlord describe Atta and his roommates and guests, you’d have though Atta and his roommates were Boy Scouts. The landlord got that impression because Atta cultivated that image; he knew how to blend in with suburban America and he made a deliberate effort to do so.

Mohammad Atta wasn’t the only one.

• Faisal Shahzad, the Jihadist terrorist who attempted to set off a bomb in Times Square in New York City on May 1st, 2010, lived in suburbia and was often seen walking his neighborhood with his two little girls.

• Najibullah Zazi, who pled guilty in a plot to bomb the New York City subway system, lived a quiet life in Flushing, New York , attended Flushing High School and, for 5 years, operated a coffee and pastry cart on Wall Street, complete with a “God Bless America” sign on display.

• Nineteen-year old Hosam Smadi, who was convicted in a plot to blow up a Dallas skyscraper in 2009, was described by many that knew him as “one of the nicest men they had ever met.” The NBC affiliate in Dallas/Fort Worth described him in a story: “He was a mixture between wannabe gangster and wannabe rock star”… “Everybody loved Sam. He liked to hang out and have fun.” Part of the fun Smadi had in mind was committing mass murder in the name of Jihad.

And I can go on and on…

Jihadist terrorists are all too often your normal next-door neighbor. They are not abnormal looking and typically do not stand out. It takes a well-informed person about the ideology of Jihad to spot the changes of behavior and ask the right questions. The problem we are facing as a society is that we have the blind leading the blind. This willful blindness is coming from the top down. From the office of the president who has purged all terms of Islamic Jihad, Jihadism, Islamic terrorism out of our national language lest we offend Muslims.

Case in point was the Boston bombing. The Russian intelligence turned in a recorded phone conversation between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his mother discussing Jihad to the FBI to alert them to the coming threat. The FBI didn’t understand the seriousness of that conversation because, since the purge by President Obama in 2009, the FBI is taught that Jihad is basically Islamic Yoga to better yourself.

We as Americans must come to grips with the fact that we now have an enemy that is living and working amongst us. We must become educated as to their ideology and doctrine and accept the fact that they hate us because of that doctrine and ideology. It’s not a pleasant thought, but whether we want to admit it or not, those are the facts and it is their reality. As a result, it has now become our reality too. It is also our national duty as American citizens to identify the threat, create an open national dialogue about the ideology of Jihad and do whatever we can to protect our citizens against it. Anything less than that would be a betrayal to all the great American leaders who came before us and gave their all to create the greatest, most powerful nation on the face of the planet.

Walid Phares: Obama Doesn’t Get Global Fight Against Jihadists

global-jihad-1-y8pyo0By Melanie Batley and Kathleen Walter:

President Barack Obama fails to understand that the fight against jihadists is a global war based on a shared international ideology, according to a leading terrorism expert.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV, Dr. Walid Phares, a Congressional advisor and the co-secretary general of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counterterrorism, said the president’s counterterrorism speech on Thursday “ignored the fact that the jihadists are connected worldwide.”

“The president said, for example, that there are a bunch of thugs in every country and they call themselves al-Qaida, meaning that they are not connected, and therefore our counterterrorism effort should be country-by-country and not [an] interconnected, international, global effort against the jihadists,” said Phares, the author of several books on terrorism including, “The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad.”

He said even though jihadists are diverse and vary by country, they are international, have a global view, and exchange information.

“The mistake in the analysis of the administration is that they don’t see the global dimension while we are in a global war with the jihadists,” he said.

Read more at Newsmax with video of very informative interview

 

Walid Phares Facebook comment:

Next Talking Point: “Global Paranoia…”

A new notion advanced by the apologist camp in the United States in criticizing the so-called “War on Terror” is to describe global efforts against the Jihadi networks as “Global paranoia.” A sister concept to “Islamophobia,” “Global Paranoia” is the doctrine designed to de-legitimize the “campaign against al Qaeda worldwide” as a global effort, and end the notion of a “Global Jihadist Movement.” It will characterize the shift in doctrine of the Obama Administration in its second term, a shift announced during the Presidential speech at the National Defense University. We have projected the dismantlement of the US War against the global Jihadist movement since 2009. This the next Talking Point in the market of ideas, will be “no to global paranoia.”

Online Jihadi Publications Luring Teens

The cover of the spring 2013 edition Al-Qaeda's slick, English online 'Inspire' magazine.

The cover of the spring 2013 edition Al-Qaeda’s slick, English online ‘Inspire’ magazine.

The Clarion Project:

Radical Islamists around the world have been reacting online to the bomb attacks that struck the Boston Marathon last month.

Since America intensified its counterterrorism efforts against al-Qaeda over the last several years, the terrorist group’s leaders have called on their followers in the United States to carry out smaller-scale attacks while at the same time providing online education and teach them how to carry them out.

According to Shiraz Maher of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization, the bombings at the Boston Marathon not only caught U.S. intelligence services by surprise, but debate raged onjihadist websites over the motivations and its implications.

“In the most generic and broadest sense, there was a sense of celebration on the jihadi forums. These guys are committed jihadists. They hate the United States and the West,” Maher said.

Terror analyst Raffaello Pantucci of the Royal United Services Institute says al-Qaeda cells are encouraging radicalized individuals in the West through the internet. Al-Qaeda has developed a new tactic which essentially teaches that even if it cannot take lives directly, it wants to inflict economic and financial losses on the United States and the West generally.

This is “Open-source jihad as they call it, in which individuals are very much empowered or the emphasis is on them to launch attacks where they can on targets that they specifically identify using materials on hand,” Pantucci said.

Read more

The Women of Benghazigate

248390646

By Frank Gaffney:

Suddenly, it seems we have broken through the most effective executive branch cover-up and complicit media blackout in memory.  Among the many recent revelations is one that has gone unnoted:  The prominent role played by women in the Obama administration’s: policy-making that led up to the jihadist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; its handling of the crisis; and its subsequent, scandalous damage-control operation.

Since, as they say, you can’t tell the players without a scorecard, here’s a short guide to the Women of Benghazigate, whose contributions to one aspect or another of this affair have become public knowledge – thanks, in particular, to testimony from three whistleblowers before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week:

  • First, there is Hillary Clinton, who was Secretary of State at the time. We now know she was personally responsible for at least some of the decisions that left personnel in the “special mission compound” in Benghazi highly vulnerable to attack.  Her whereabouts and activities are unaccounted for – like those of President Obama – during most of the seven-plus hours in which jihadists systematically assaulted first that facility and then a nearby CIA “annex.”  And then, the next day, she knowingly deceived the public about what precipitated the attack, blaming an internet video.
  • The poster child for the Benghazigate cover-up is UN Ambassador Susan Rice.  She was chosen to make the rounds of all five network Sunday morning news programs on September 16, 2012.  She reinforced the false narrative that Mrs. Clinton first pushed out publicly four days before in a joint Rose Garden appearance with President Obama.
  • State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was evidently among those involved in massaging twelve different versions of “talking points” upon which intelligence officials drew to misleadingly brief the Congress.  Amb. Rice also used such guidance to justify the fraud that YouTube, not jihad, was responsible for the violence in Benghazi.
  • Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was formerly in charge of managing so-called “bimbo eruptions” during Bill Clinton’s 1992 run for the White House and administration.  According to one of last week’s witnesses, Gregory Hicks – who became the Chief of Mission in Libya after his boss, Ambassador Chris Stevens, was murdered on that fateful night, Ms. Mills has lately been suppressing equally unwanted eruptions concerning Benghazigate.  She upbraided the diplomat for challenging the party line about what happened then and thereafter.  She also reportedly sought to interfere with a congressional investigation into the matter.
  •  Mr. Hicks testified that the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, Beth Jones, delivered her own, “blistering critique” of his management style after he asked “why the ambassador said there was a demonstration when the embassy reported there was an attack?”  Mr. Hicks believes he was demoted in retaliation for posing such unwelcome questions.

Curiously, the truth that has finally begun to emerge has yet to shed light on the involvement of two other women who almost certainly were players before, during and after the Benghazi attacks.

The first is Valerie Jarrett.  She is President Obama’s longtime consigliere.  Such is her relationship with him and the First Lady that she is permitted to involve herself in virtually all portfolios, including the most sensitive foreign affairs and national security ones.

That would surely be the case in this instance in light of Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan’s insightful observation:

“The Obama White House sees every event as a political event….Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications, and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it.”

To paraphrase Senator Howard Baker’s famous questions from an earlier congressional investigation of a presidential cover-up called Watergate: What did Ms. Jarrett do, and when did she do it?

Then, there’s Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin.  It strains credulity that Ms. Abedin would not be involved in this crisis, given the important role she has played in Mrs. Clinton’s world for over twelve years. As the Washington Post observed in 2007 – long before Hillary became America’s top diplomat: “Abedin…is one of Clinton’s most-trusted advisers on the Middle East….When Clinton hosts meetings on the region, Abedin’s advice is always sought.”

What was Huma Abedin’s advice when her boss responded to the proverbial “3 o’clock call” on the evening of September 11, 2012?  For that matter, in light of Huma’s longstanding and well-documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, we need to know what advice Ms. Abedin had been giving the Secretary of State about helping the Brotherhood and its fellow Islamists topple relatively friendly regimes throughout the Mideast and North Africa, including Muammar Qaddafi’s in Libya.

Of course, there are plenty of men implicated in the run-up to, events of and efforts to conceal the Benghazi scandal, starting with the President himself.  Their contributions to this debacle require thorough investigation.  But so do those of the Women of Benghazigate, including those peculiarly unimplicated to date: Valerie Jarrett and Huma Abedin.

Defense in the Age of Jihad

jihad_9By Cliff May:

Defense policies are not created in a vacuum. They are designed to meet threats. Over time, threats change in ways that are difficult to predict. In the past, America’s enemies generally wore uniforms and confronted American soldiers on a foreign field of battle. Today, America’s enemies may wear backwards-facing baseball caps and attack marathon runners along with the men, women, and children cheering for them on a sunny April afternoon in New England.

What happened in Boston last week was terrible and terrifying — precisely the outcome terrorists seek to achieve. But it could have been worse. It was worse on September 11, 2001, and it will be worse again if we let down our guard, if we stop taking the fight to those sworn to destroy us, and if we refuse to understand who they are, what they believe, and what they want.

They have told us — over and over — that they are waging what they call a jihad. The policy of the current administration, and to a great extent the previous administration as well, has been to avoid such terminology. One notable exception: Just before she stepped down as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton spoke with rare candor. “We now face a spreading jihadist threat,” she said, adding, “we have to recognize this is a global movement.”

Yet so many people — in government, the media, academia — refuse to believe this, or at least refuse to acknowledge it. I was on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this week debatingHina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. She declared, “There is no global war. . . . There is no global jihadist movement.”

About the massacre in Boston there is much we still do not know. But the evidence available so far can only lead to the conclusion that two young men from Chechnya committed an act of terrorism on American soil in support of what they believe is a global jihad.

How do we know the bombs were not a protest — a secular one, with no Islamist roots — against Russia’s occupation of Chechnya and in favor of Chechen independence? Because then the target would have been Moscow, not Boston.

Read more at Town Hall

 

Muslim Roulette

bosch61By Bosch Fawstin:

Can anyone tell which Muslim will go jihad before he or she does?

Non-Muslim Muslims, or as some call them “Moderate Muslims,” give the Jihadist enemy cover. They’re pointed to as “proof” that violence has nothing to do with Islam when, in fact, non-violent Muslims are reluctant Muslims. And they’re the reason we’re playing a game of Muslim Roulette in the middle of the Muslim world’s jihad on us. While we’d like to discriminate between “moderate Muslims,” “extremist Muslims,” etc., Muslims see us as Infidels, period. Not moderate Infidels, extremist infidels, etc., but simply Infidels.

Since 9/11 – a day that FAR too many Muslims celebrated – we’ve been expected to treat Muslims as if they’re not only above reproach, but as if it’s racist or “Islamophobic” to consider for an instant that any Muslim might be up to no good; that they’re All innocent no matter how many of them have been proven guilty of engaging in or supporting jihad.

When our government bureaucrats tell us “If you see something, say something,” they rely on us to be the ones to decide what that means, in order to protect themselves from accusations of “Islamophobia.” Islam is an ideology, not a race, so what we’re supposed to be looking for gets very complicated, since, in addition to Arab Muslims, there are white, black, Hispanic, female, blond-haired, red-haired, and blue-eyed Muslims as well. This is not a call to condemn all those who call themselves Muslims, it’s just a reminder that we need to be better able to detect killer Muslims before they kill. And that’s the job our government should be engaged in — not protecting Muslim feelings, but protecting American lives.

For more on this, see the most popular piece I’ve written on Islam, Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against The West.

Bosch Fawstin is an Eisner Award-nominated cartoonist currently working on a graphic novel, The Infidel, featuring the anti-jihad superhero, Pigman. The first two chapters are now available in digital comic book form. Bosch’s first graphic novel is Table for One. He is also the author of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a print companion to The Infidel.