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.

 

America Takes Down Osama bin Laden’s Lawyer

stan_edited-1By Daniel Greenfield:

Osama bin Laden’s lawyer didn’t live in a cave in Afghanistan. Like so many terrorist lawyers, he was a New Yorker. His law office, which has seen more terrorists and their files pass through it than an Afghan cave, sits above a Muslim 99 cent store that offers discounted napkins, sandals and toasters, and is a four-minute drive away from the World Trade Center.

Stanley Cohen has never been shy about fighting what he believes in. And what he believes in is murder.

“If I don’t support the politics of political clients, I don’t take the case,” he once said. A few weeks after September 11, he said, “If Osama bin Laden arrived in the United States today and asked me to represent him, sure I’d represent him.”

Osama bin Laden never did arrive in the United States, though perhaps one day pieces of him will wash up on a California beach, and his wannabe lawyer had to settle for representing his son-in-law, who, after September 11, had appeared in a video threatening that “the storm of planes will not stop.”

Neither Stanley Cohen nor his client were able to make good on their threats. And in a twist, Stanley Cohen may end up with a prison sentence before the Al Qaeda spokesman whom he represents.

Al Capone didn’t go down for any of the murders he committed. Instead he was put away for tax fraud. Now Stanley Cohen faces a maximum of twenty-five years locked away in prison with the terrorists, murderers and rapists whom he has spent a lifetime defending both in and out of court.

Like so many leftists, Cohen began as a community organizer. Then he joined forces with another terrorist lawyer, Lynne Stewart, to defend Kathy Boudin, a member of the Weather Underground. Stewart was put away for passing messages from the Blind Sheikh, the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood splinter group, whose followers carried out the World Trade Center bombing and plotted further attacks.

Cohen became Stewart’s lawyer but couldn’t save his partner from a ten-year jail sentence for providing material support to terrorists. Now he may end up joining her behind bars.

Read more at Front Page

 

U.S. Appeals Court Allows Citizens to Sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11

twin towers impactClarion Project:

In a  landmark decision, a federal court overturned a previous court decision that had banned  private citizens from suing Saudi Arabia directly for damages incurred during the 9/11 terrorist attack.

A previous federal court ruling had denied any lawsuits against the kingdom in a 2002 ruling that said the kingdom had sovereign immunity.

The new ruling, made by a three-judge panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, overturned that ruling saying that lawsuits against Saudi Arabia were in the “interest of justice” due to the fact that much of the funding for the hijackers (the majority of whom were from Saudi Arabia) came from the Saudi Arabia.

The new ruling means that families who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001 attack on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as those who insured businesses that were destroyed in the attack, will be able to sue Saudi Arabia directly for monetary damages.

“I’m ecstatic…. For 12 years we’ve been fighting to expose the people who financed those [killers],” said William Doyle. Doyle’s son, Joseph Doyle was just 25 when he was killed in the North Tower of the World Trade Center while working for Cantor-Fitzgerald.

The original lawsuit, filed ten years ago by Cozen O’Conner (a firm out of Philadelphia) accused members of the Saudi government as well as the royal family of serving on charities that bankrolled Al Qaeda operations. The suit alleges that these government officials and royals knew the money from these “charities” would be used for terrorism.

“We conclude that the circumstances of this case are extraordinary,” the judges said in the new ruling. The judges further concluded that the lower court judge who made the original ruling “rested on an error of law” when he originally disallowed law suits against the kingdom.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Jerry S. Goldman, commented, “This is a big step forward in the process of obtaining fair justice for the victims of this tragedy.” Goldman added that the decision was “soundly grounded and restores this case to the proper procedural posture.”

 

 

The Gang Religion of Islam

By Daniel Greenfield:

Killing non-Muslims is the point of Islam. To the extent that it has any point. That isn’t to say that Islam doesn’t preach the virtues of charity and love for one’s fellow Muslim. It does. But its virtues are not original. Like most of the rest of the framework of it, they are lifted from existing religions.

islamWhen the Sahih Muslim’s Hadith quotes Mohammed as saying, “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself”; it’s a distortion of the Christian Bible. And when Obama quotes the Koran as saying, “If any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people,” it’s an equally shameless plagiarism of the Jewish Talmud.

Like the Soviet Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion, these are nice sentiments borrowed from other people and then not actually put into practice. The Islam that matters is the one that’s put into practice not only at the World Trade Center or the Westgate Mall, but in the everyday lives of people in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Islamic violence we are told is an aberration. But it isn’t. To the extent that Islam is anything, it is violence.

Islam may have become a religion, but it began as a code. Like the Pirate Code or the Thieves Law of Russia, it was a set of rules that allowed a select group of bandits to choose leaders, plan attacks and divide the loot.

The code invested their actions with meaning, it kept order in their ranks and allowed the members to believe that dying for the gang was more than a martial ethos, but also contained a spiritual element. Similar attempts to invest gang life with spirituality can be found in the tattoos, rap songs and graffiti memorials of every street gang in America.

Imagine the Kingism of the Latin Kings street gang, which has its own prayers, crude theology and philosophy becoming the religion of the gangs ruling over a Post-American civilization. In the 80s, the Chicago gang Blackstone Rangers realized the benefits of becoming a religion and declared itself the El Rukn tribe of the Moorish Science Temple of America.

Despite the elaborate mythology, the Latin Kings is a gang first and a religion second. In time it might become a full religion, stranger things have happened, but it will never be able to escape its origins. It will at its heart always be a gang code with an emphasis on providing a spiritual overlay for gang violence.

And that is the case with Islam.

After over a thousand years, after its own empires and conquests stretching around the world, after endless religious schools, reform movements, theological debates and splinter groups, Islam is not able to leave its gang roots behind. It is still at its core a gang religion. That is why it appeals so well to convicts who recognize that they are interacting with something far more ancient than Kingism.

That is also why Islam, like most street gangs, degenerates so readily into internecine violence. No matter how much its devotees dream of conquering the decadent West and planting the black flag of Islam everywhere, they can’t help turning their guns on each other, because gangs are naturally primed to fight amongst themselves. The gang code never suffices to settle disputes among men who live by violence. They may fight to impose Islamic law on the world, but they can’t live by it.

Syria is Islam at its most primal with gangs fighting over the ruins of cities, small groups joining up, Shiite and Sunni militias killing each other, Free Syrian Army and Al Nusra Front gangs fighting over bakeries and pipelines, an endless stream of recruits from around the world rushing to join up in a gang war that has claimed over 100,000 lives.

That is how Islam began. One man and his gang. That man may not be depicted or the gangs of his followers will blow things up. When they aren’t blowing up each other. The gang spread around the world. Its Caliphs and Emirs went from thugs and clan leaders to rulers of nations. And then the whole thing collapsed again. Now the gang leaders are trying to get the gang back together again.

Islam was born in the chaos of the implosion of two empires, Byzantium and Persia, tearing at each other until they both gave way and were overrun by Islam. The second coming of Islam took place during the climactic battle between two new empires, America and the Soviet Union, who exhausted each other, and may end up suffering the same fate as the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanids.

islamicjihadbomberdemo4The common denominator is that the rise of Islam parallels the collapse of other civilizations. Like the jackal sniffing around the bones of empire, the gangs of Islam step into a vacuum, but can never fill it. The second-hand knowledge that they steal and pass off as their own never leads them anywhere. The Golden Age built on the labor and creative ideas of others passes and there is nothing left except bitter resentment at greatness lost and a future denied.

Read more 

 

The Man Who Keeps New York Safe

by DEROY MURDOCK:

Stoic.

That word best describes New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly. In an increasingly juvenile nation, Kelly’s granite temperament can be a tad daunting. But if you knew what Kelly knows, you might not smile much, either.

20130916_raykellycloseup

“The threat of terrorism is as great, if not greater, today than it was before the World Trade Center was destroyed,” Kelly recently said. “Do not think for a second that al-Qaeda and those who share its ideology have forgotten about New York,” he continued. “Images of the World Trade Center and scenes of the City are regularly displayed on jihadist websites and al-Qaeda publications. Its propagandists call on followers in the United States to take up the battle at home and use bombs, guns, and poison to indiscriminately kill.”

In a breakfast speech at the New York Hilton that made last Monday tougher than most, Kelly told the Association for a Better New York and the Council on Foreign Relations that America’s financial and media capital remains militant Islam’s target of choice.

“In the mind of al-Qaeda and its acolytes, New York is the symbol of all they hate about America and the West,” Kelly added. “In just the past ten months there have been several plots with a nexus to New York City.”

  • Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, 23, arrived from Bangladesh on a student visa. He conspired to blast Manhattan’s Federal Reserve Bank last October. On August 9, he received a 30-year prison sentence.
  • Raess Alam Qazi and Sheheryar Alam Qazi, two Pakistani-born brothers, were nabbed in Florida last November 29 after plotting to detonate theaters and restaurants in Times Square.
  • NYPD undercover efforts prompted the arrest of Justin Kaliebe, 18, as he boarded a jet for Yemen, allegedly to join Ansar al-Sharia, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Kelly observed, “There’s little doubt that his handlers would have sent him back here to their number-one target, New York City.”
  • An unnamed, Iranian-trained al-Qaeda agent met a conspirator here. Among other objectives, they planned to attack a train between New York and Canada. So much for the myth that Sunni al-Qaeda and Shiite Iran will not cooperate to kill Americans.
  • Just days after allegedly bombing the Boston Marathon last April, killing three people and wounding 264, the Tsarnaev brothers drove towards Manhattan with pipe bombs and explosive pressure cookers. Had their hostage not escaped, Kelly explained, “They would have arrived in Midtown in time to launch a devastating attack at the morning rush hour.”

“Again,” Kelly emphasized, “these all are events in the last ten months.”

Kelly has led the NYPD into becoming what Heritage Foundation national-security scholar Cully Stimson calls “the best city police department in terms of counterterrorism in the USA.”

After 9/11, Kelly boosted his personnel on the FBI’s Joint Counterterrorism Task Force from 17 to 120. The NYPD has become a mini-CIA. Senior officers are stationed in eleven cities overseas and cooperate with local cops. These New Yorkers “visit the scenes of terrorist attacks and gather real-time information that guides the NYPD’s operations at home,” Kelly noted.

The NYPD benefits from the diverse ethno-linguistic ingredients that simmer within the quintessential melting pot that is America’s premier metropolis.

“We have hundreds of speakers of Arabic, Urdu, Pashto, Farsi, Russian, Mandarin, and other important languages,” Kelly remarked. “Police departments from across the country have come to study our programs. After the bombings at the Boston Marathon, we hosted a group of 20 law-enforcement officials from Boston for a week, who came here to learn what they could do to better protect their city.”

Read more: Family Security 

Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service. His column, “This Opinion Just In…,” frequently appears in the New York Post, Washington Times, and Orange County Register, among some 400 U.S. newspapers he reaches weekly.    

Princeton Professor Embraces 9/11 Conspiracy Movement at Million Muslim March Event

IPT News
September 12, 2013

 

12-Years After 9/11/2001, And 21,564 Jihad Terror Attacks Later, U.S. Policymaking Elites Are Still in Jihad Denial

download (11)by Andrew Bostom:

My Preface to the paperbound 2008 edition of  The Legacy of Jihad, written in late 2007, included this observation:

During mid-November, 2007, a grim milestone was recorded in the macabre tally being kept assiduously in cyberspace by [The Religion of Peace (TROP) website]: the 10,000th attack by jihad terrorists resulting in some 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured since the cataclysmic acts of jihad terrorism on September 11, 2001.

[TROP] does not include combat-related statistics, and he acknowledges that the death toll may increase in the days and months following any given attack (as victims die from their injuries), and this rarely gets reported. His tally also excludes the genocide in Darfur committed by the Islamic government in Sudan, and their marauding jihadist militias (the Janjaweed), whose murderous ravages the UN estimated last year had resulted in some 400,000 dead, and 2 million displaced.

[TROP] identified three episodes of such continuous, mind numbing jihadist carnage which had perhaps unsettled him most: Nadimarg, India (3/23/03), dozens of Hindu villagers roused out of their beds and machine-gunned by Lashkar-e-Toiba; Beslan, Russia (9/3/04), some 350 people slaughtered by jihadists—half of them children; Malatya, Turkey (4/18/07), three Christian Bible distributors bound, tortured for hours, then gruesomely murdered by men who acted explicitly in the name of Islam.

Just under six years later, the rate of carnage having escalated, that gruesometally as of September 10, 2013, was 21,564 attacks. During the recently completed week of August 31 through September 6, 2013, alone, there were 49 jihad terror attacks, including 6 “jihad martyrdom” homicide bombings, resulting in 309 deaths, and 610 critical injuries. Those figures for the entire month of August, 2013, were 260 jihad terror attacks occurring in 25 countries (directed against votaries of 4 non-Muslim “infidel” religions, and also including sectarian Islamic violence between Muslims), causing 161 deaths, and 3412 critical injuries.

The consensus view of orthodox Islamic jurisprudence regarding jihad, since its formulation during the 8th and 9th centuries, through the current era, is that non-Muslims peacefully going about their lives—from the Khaybar farmers whom Muhammad ordered attacked in 628, to those sitting in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01—are “muba’a”, licit,  in the Dar al Harb, lands not yet vanquished by jihad war. As described by the great 20th century scholar of Islamic Law, Joseph Schacht,

A non-Muslim who is not protected by a treaty is called harbi, ‘”n a state of war,” “enemy alien”; his life and property are completely unprotected by law…

And these innocent non-combatants can be killed, and have always been killed, with impunity simply by virtue of being “harbis” during endless razzias and or full scale jihad campaigns that have occurred continuously since the time of Muhammad, through the present. This is the crux of the specific institutionalized religio-political ideology, i.e., jihad, which makes Islamdom’s borders, innards,  and the further reaches of today’s jihadists, “bloody,” to paraphrase the late Samuel Huntington, across the globe.

concluded the updated 2008 Preface to The Legacy of Jihad with these comments, which sadly apply to our policymaking elites with even more uniformity today, September 11, 2013:

Julien Benda in his classic 1928 La Trahison de Clercs (The Treason of the Intellectuals) decried with prophetic accuracy how the abandonment of objective truth abetted totalitarian ideologies, which lead to the cataclysmic destruction of World War II. La Trahison de Clercs of our time remains the nearly complete failure of Western intellectuals to study, understand, and acknowledge the heinous consequences of the living Islamic institution of jihad war.

 

 

Americans Being Forced to Pay for Al Jazeera

al-jazeera-america-carousel-large (1)By Kieran Lalor:

Two weeks ago, Al Jazeera America launched, beaming into 48 million homes across the country. The media company that allowed Osama bin Laden to use it as a vehicle to communicate with jihadists around the world is now on your TV screen and you are paying for it. The network pushed its way onto basic cable packages with several providers. If you subscribe to Verizon, Comcast, Dish Network or DirecTV, you are forced to subsidize Al Jazeera’s propaganda as part of your cable bill whether you like it or not.

I represent a district about 70 miles north of where the Twin Towers once stood. Thousands of my constituents commute to Manhattan every day.  People from this area perished in the savage attacks of September 11, 2001.  Serviceman from our community made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting to prevent another attack.  Four Marines I served with left everything they had on the battlefields of Iraq.  When constituents contacted my office to express outrage that Al Jazeera America is now part of their basic cable package, I took it very seriously.

We should not have to fund Al Jazeera through our cable bills. Americans do not want to pay for their vile propaganda. I’m launching a petition drive calling on cable companies to drop Al Jazeera from their basic cable packages.

Al Jazeera was founded in 1996 by the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani and is owned by his government.  Some have claimed that Al Jazeera is independent of the dictatorship that runs Qatar.  But the emir’s cousin Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim al-Thani runs the network despite not having a journalism background.

In late 2012 former vice president Al Gore and his partners put their fledgling liberal television network Current TV up for sale.  Gore and company accepted Al Jazeera’s offer of a half billion dollars on January 2nd 2013.  A spokesman for Gore’s group said they chose Al Jazeera because “Al Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had for Current,” which was “to give voice to those whose voices are not typically heard” and “to speak truth to power.”

Verizon, Comcast, DirecTV and Dish Network already carry Al Jazeera America, and Al Jazeera has plans to force their way onto more cable bills. Time Warner Cable, which carried Current TV, dropped Al Jazeera America.  AT &T U-Verse was originally going to carry the network but backed out and is now being sued by Al Jazeera for breach of contract.  Cablevision and Cox Communications do not air Al Jazeera America.

My constituents and I are alarmed that as subscribers, we are being forced against our will to pay for a network that is owned by a foreign dictatorship and has a long history of anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and support for Islamic terror.

For example, Al Jazeera America has already run a show about closing Guantanamo, painting terrorists as victims and the US as oppressors.  The Arabic Al Jazeera threw a birthday party for terrorist Samir Kuntar, celebrating him as a “pan-Arab hero.” Kuntar murdered an Israeli father and his 4-year-old daughter in their home. The Israeli family’s mother accidentally suffocated their toddler son as she tried to muffle his cries while hiding from Kuntar. Al Jazeera paid for fireworks to celebrate Kuntar’s release from prison. In the days after September 11th, Al Jazeera reported as fact the anti-Semitic lie that Jewish Americans had been told not to come to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11.  CNN reportedthat a document found in bin Laden’s compound following his death referenced a meeting with the Al Jazeera bureau chief in Pakistan.

Read more at American Thinker

 

Hiroshima’s Lessons for the War on Terror

 Our greatest weakness is that we want our enemies to love us. We turn wars into humanitarian exercises that inflict a much worse toll on both sides than an actual war would have and then we wonder what went wrong.

warBy :

In the summer of ’45, the United States concluded a war that had come to be seen by some as unwinnable after the carnage at Iwo Jima, with a bang.

On August 6th, the bomb fell on Hiroshima. And then on the 9th, it was Nagasaki’s turn. Six days later, Japan, which had been preparing to fight to the last man, surrendered.

For generations of liberals, those two names would come to represent the horror of America’s war machine, when they actually represented a pragmatic ruthlessness that saved countless American and Japanese lives.

There can hardly be a starker contrast to our endless unwinnable nation-building exercises than the way that Truman cut the Gordian Knot and avoided a long campaign that would have depopulated Japan and destroyed the lives of a generation of American soldiers.

That we can talk about Japan as a victory is attributable to that decision to use the bomb. Without it, Japan would have been another Iraq or Vietnam, we might have won it at a terrible cost, but it would have destroyed our willingness to fight any future wars and would have given the USSR an early victory in Asia.

Professional soldiers understand the humanitarian virtue of ruthlessness. The pacifist civilian may gasp in horror at the sight of a mushroom cloud, but the professional soldier knows that the longer way around would have left every Japanese city looking far worse than Hiroshima.

More people died in the Battle of Okinawa on both sides than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 9 out of 10 buildings were destroyed. As much as a third of the island’s population committed suicide, fled into caves that were bombed, were used as human shields and were killed when American soldiers found themselves unable to distinguish between Japanese soldiers posing as civilians and actual civilians.

It does not take much to imagine what trying to capture Honshu would have looked like. Take the worst horrors of Vietnam and keep multiplying until you run out of imagination. If you run low, remember that at Okinawa the military was handing out grenades to civilians and its home defense plans involved encouraging the civilian population to commit suicide attacks.

The United States military did not understand the fanatical mindset of its enemies, but it did understand that they had to be fought with equal ruthlessness. And now, nearly seventy years later, on another hot August, we find ourselves in another seemingly unwinnable war.

At the Wall Street Journal, former media figure Ted Koppel popped up with an editorial warning that an overreaction to terrorism is more dangerous than terrorism. Summoning up the left’s favorite argument after the September 11 attacks; he wrote that more Americans had died in car accidents, ladder accidents and of various diseases than in the World Trade Center.

Doubtlessly more Americans died in some assortment of accidents in 1941 than at Pearl Harbor. Instead of calling it a day that will live forever in infamy, FDR could have given a typical Obama speech warning the public not to jump to any conclusions.

Obama gave one of those conclusion-jumping speeches after Nidal Hasan murdered 13 Americans in the Fort Hood Massacre. He gave another one after the Boston Marathon bombings.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Documents Show FBI Purged Training Materials Deemed ‘Offensive’ to Muslims by the Professionally Offended

MBUSASealsPJ Media, By Brian Preston:

According to Judicial Watch, it has obtained documents that show the Federal Bureau of Investigations intentionally blinding itself.

Judicial Watch has released hundreds of pages of FBI memos and other documents revealing that, in 2012, the agency purged its anti-terrorism training curricula of material determined by an undisclosed group of “Subject Matter Experts” (SME) to be “offensive” to Muslims. The excised material included references linking the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorism, tying al Qaeda to the 1993 World Trade Center and Khobar Towers bombings, and suggesting that “young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance … may fit the terrorist profile best.”

Judicial Watch obtained the materials on January 15 and on April 16, 2013, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on July 18,2013 (Judicial Watch v. Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01183)).

The documents show the specific reasons used to purge the materials:

·        “Article is highly inflammatory and inaccurately argues the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.”

·        “Page 13 inaccurately states that AQ (al Qaeda) is responsible for the bombing of the Khobar Towers and that AQ is ‘clearly linked’ to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.”

·        “The overall tenor of the presentation is too informal in the current political context.”

·        “The Qur’an is not the teachings of the Prophet, but the revealed word of God.”

·        “Remove references to mosques specifically as a radicalization incubator.”

·        “Remove sweeping generality of ‘Those who fit the terrorist profile best (for the present at least) are young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance’”

·         “author seems to conflate ‘Islamic militancy’ with ‘terrorism’ and needs to define the difference and use it in their analysis”

Judicial Watch sums up what the documents mean:

“The FBI is rewriting history in order to help al Qaeda. This shows that the law enforcement agency is in need of serious top-to-bottom reform. As we recently learned from the Boston Marathon terrorist attack, the country is less safe when we allow radical Muslim organizations to tell the FBI how to train its agents and do its job,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI’s purge of so called ‘offensive’ material is political correctness run amok, and it puts the nation at risk. The Obama administration needs to stop putting the tender sensibilities of radical Islamists above the safety of the American people.”

Well, we know who sets the tone.

The “Grievances” Defense

images (66)by Peter Huessy:

If grievances explain terrorism, the implication is that removing the grievances would remove the terrorism. The U.S. was warned, however, before 9/11, that it faced a “poisonous coalition” of terror groups, wealthy sheiks, military establishments and intelligence, all fueled with an apparently endless supply of indoctrinated recruits from madrassas and mosques. This coalition now has nuclear weapons. A credible case can be argued that the West has the right of self-defense.

The April terrorist attacks during the Boston Marathon killed and wounded scores of people. Machete-wielding thugs last week butchered a British soldier in full view of citizens on a London street. Simultaneously, in Sweden, a full five days of riots have seen burned cars, banks and schools, and assaulted citizens.

These attacks raise the uncomfortable question: “Why are we being attacked?”

A newly announced American policy to deal with such threats involves “addressing grievances and conflicts” that feed what is described as “extremism.”

But will this work?

After 9/11, despite the impression of a nation coming together, almost immediately many pundits, media outlets and academics blamed America. We were, for example, attacked because “our chickens [were] coming home to roost.” Three reasons were most often cited: our sanctions against Iraq; our deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia and our support for Israel.

Over a quarter of a century ago, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, our UN ambassador during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan’s, first explained this tendency to “always blame America first.” It flowed from a view that saw American military power as a harmful force in world politics. Steven Kinzer in All the Shah’s Men argued in 2003, just two years later, that, “It is not far-fetched to draw a line through the Shah’s repressive regime and the Islamic revolution [1979] to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York.” A decade later, former Congressman Ron Paul similarly argued the attacks of 9/11 were in retaliation for American troops being deployed in Saudi Arabia in 1990-1991, there to drive Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And on May 23, the administration sought to explain what it terms “violent extremism” as a reaction to the “thousands of civilians that have been killed” in Iraq and Afghanistan,” implicitly by American intervention.

Even now, many weeks after the Boston Marathon bombing, the “Blame America” syndrome is on full display.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

How to Defeat Terrorism In America Without Firing A Shot

20130528_OBAMA_MUSLIM_BROTHERHOODby ALAN KORNMAN:

The Muslim Brotherhoods top spiritual leader Youssef Qaradawi has been banned from entering the United States since 1999.  Qaradawi called for attacks on US troops and civilians,  death to all Jews, and for the collapse of the United States.  Hatred of America is the spiritual core of The Muslim Brotherhood as articulated by its spiritual leader.  When someone says they wish to cause you harm — believe them.

How To Cripple Terrorism In America Without Firing A Shot

If the American people want our elected officials and law enforcement to cripple Islamic terrorism without having to fire a shot, it can be done in three easy steps.

Step 1:  Declare The Muslim Brotherhood a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization)

Step 2:  Publicly name all The Muslim Brotherhood affiliates operating in the United States,  based on evidence submitted during The Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding trial.

Step 3:  The FTO designation will trigger a provision of law allowing theTreasury Department and FBI to shut down all Muslim Brotherhood sub groups operating in the United States, confiscate their records, assets, real estate, freeze bank accounts, then jail and/or deport all individuals associated with The Muslim Brotherhood.

Designation of  Foreign Terrorist Organizations

The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, are authorized to designate an organization as a foreign terrorist organization in accordance with:

(A) the organization is a foreign organization;

(B)     the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 1182 (a)(3)(B) of this title or terrorism (as defined in section 2656f (d)(2) of title 22), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism)  [1] ; and

(C) the terrorist activity or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.

The Case For The Muslim Brotherhood’s FTO Status

Muslim Brotherhood Motto

“Allah is our objective, the Prophet our leader, the Quran our Constitution, jihad our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar.”

The United States became the victim of high profile Islamic terrorism on February 26, 1993 with the bombing of the World Trade Center.  The mastermind of this attack on America was Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman aka The Blind Sheikh.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi has proclaimed repeatedly he wishes to gain the release of Muslim Brotherhood operative Omar Abdel Rahman.  Muslim Brotherhood leader Morsi’s support for the blind Sheikh ties the Brotherhood directly to Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (GIA) aka Armed Islamic Group, designated a FTO on 10/8/1997 yet mysteriously delisted on 10/15/2010.

On December 15, 2010 Secretary of State Clinton delisted the GIA under mysterious circumstances, as the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak by The Muslim Brotherhood was in play.

The GIA is the military wing of The Muslim Brotherhood and The Blind Sheikh is its leader. Second in charge of the MB military wing was Ayman al-Zawahiri who later became Al-Qaeda’s #2 behind Osama Bin Laden.  John Guandolo would call this a clue  The Muslim Brotherhood poses a national security risk to the United States of America.

Read more: Family Security Matters

 

Twenty Years after the WTC Bombing

20121001_WTC_attack_1993By Andrew C. McCarthy, February 26, 2013:

Today is the 20th anniversary of the World Trade Center bombing. It also marks three weeks since the attempted murder of Lars Hedegaard, the intrepid Danish champion of free speech. These events are not unrelated.

Back in 1993, there was a tireless effort to limn the WTC bombers as wanton killers. They were, we were to understand, bereft of any coherent belief system, unrepresentative of any mainstream construction of Islam. In reality, though, they were devout Muslim operatives who belonged to a jihadist cell formed in the New York area by Omar Abdel Rahman – whose notoriety as the shadowy “Blind Sheikh” obscured the basis of his profound influence over Islamists across the globe.

Sheikh Abdel Rahman is an internationally renowned Islamic jurist, having earned a doctorate in the jurisprudence of sharia – Islam’s societal framework and legal code - from Egypt’s al-Azhar University, the center of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium. Blind from early youth and plagued by several other maladies, Abdel Rahman was physically incapable of building a bomb, hijacking a jetliner, carrying out an assassination – in short, of performing any blood-soaked activity that would be useful to a terrorist organization . . . other than leading it.

It was nothing other than Abdel Rahman’s indisputable mastery of Islamic doctrine, and hence his capacity to give present-day vitality to a seventh-century summons to holy war, that vaulted him to the forefront of the jihad.

The World Trade Center bombing was Islamic supremacism’s declaration of war on the United States. It was a blunt statement by the savage shock troops of a worldwide movement that America – “the head of the snake,” as the Blind Sheikh called us – could be struck at home, right in the beating heart of economic liberty.

Despite serial atrocities, thousands of deaths, and a decade of war, we are today more willfully blind to the reason we were attacked than we were back in 1993 – back when our ignorance might have been excused by our homeland’s seeming invulnerability to the scourge of jihadist terror. Regardless of our reluctance to see it, mainstream Islam – the dynamic Islam of the Middle East, unadulterated by incentives to moderate, at least for a time, while settling in non-Muslim lands – is aggressively hegemonic. As proclaimed by another iconic supremacist, Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated.”

And to dominate for a very specific reason. Supremacists are not the irrational savages we have been so desperate for two decades to portray them as. Whether the jihad terrorizes by explosives, suffocates by the systematic subjugation of women and persecution of religious minorities in Islamic countries, or infiltrates by stealthily using liberty to undermine liberty in the West, the mission is always coherent and always the same: the imposition of sharia.

The rationale of jihadist terror is to diminish our resolve to resist the gradual erosion of freedom and the relentless demands of Islamists – especially, Islamists of the Brotherhood variety. After the Blind Sheikhs and the bin Ladens have softened up the target, it is the Brothers who beguile us. Impeccably well-mannered and wearing neatly tailored suits, they flack for Hamas and maintain, straight-faced, that free speech is not so much a right to condemn their totalitarian ideology as a responsibility to suppress examination of it.

In that ideology, the implementation of classical sharia is the necessary precondition for Islamizing a society. Sharia is the architecture for a global caliphate. This is why Egypt’s president, Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood chieftain, promised that when elected he would birth a new constitution enshrining “the sharia, then the sharia, and finally the sharia” – a promise on which he has followed through. This is the utopia of all Islamists, be they terrorists, or faux moderates who proclaim their willingness to pursue totalitarian ends by “peaceful political” means, or the Muslim masses who celebrate 9/11 and vote Brotherhood parties into power.

We did not want to acknowledge the sharia logic of the terrorists 20 years ago. We were told then that Islam had nothing to do with attacks on the West incited by Muslim jurists citing Muslim scripture.

There is no selling that fairy tale today, not after thousands of Americans have lost their lives. So the lie has become more aggressive, like Islam itself. While poseurs such as John Brennan – President Obama’s counterterrorism czar and nominee for CIA director - distort the meaning of jihad, Islamists and their fellow travelers seek not merely to suppress by intimidation but to criminalize by law the objective examination of Islamic supremacism.
Read more: Family Security Matters 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor  Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and blogs at National Review Online’s The Corner. 

 

Related articles

Depictions of 9/11 Now an Islamophobic Hate Crime in New Jersey

timecover-263x350By :

The Muslim Student Association is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. All three leaders of Al Qaeda were members of the Muslim Brotherhood… including Osama bin Laden. The MSA has been involved in funding terrorists and a large number of MSA presidents have gone on to join Al Qaeda.

But what is additionally troubling about this story is that the mere depiction of September 11 is now considered a hate crime.

Montclair State University is investigating a bias incident in which someone drew a picture of planes hitting the World Trade Center on the door of a Muslim student group’s headquarters, campus officials said today.

The graffiti was found Monday outside the Office of the Muslim Student Association in the student center, said Suzanne Bronski, a campus spokeswoman.

“The university police immediately launched a full investigation, which is continuing, and the university’s Bias Response Team was appropriately alerted and has been involved,” university officials said in a statement.

Graffiti is straightforward vandalism and campus police rarely investigate the things that students scrawl on walls and doors. They were common in my time and I suspect they are even more common today. There’s no mention of whether this was done with paint or a marker, but I suspect it was the latter, which means it’s easy enough to clean off.

Is scrawling a depiction of 9/11 on the door of a Muslim organization linked to that terrorist attack by way of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda a hate crime?

Is it Muslims in general that are being targeted or the MSA, an organization with a long history of supporting extremist hate and terrorism?

The Montclair MSA appears to fundraise for Islamic Relief. Islamic Relief was founded by Hany El Banna who talks about being inspired by Sayyid Qutb and other Islamists and his charity has been accused of having terrorist links. And it may have even received money from Osama bin Laden.

The Montclair MSA has invited in Sheik Qatanani to speak to students. The Sheik is both a member of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. It invited Lauren Booth, who is an open supporter of Hamas and the Brotherhood.

But let’s get past the Montclair MSA’s willingness to host terrorist group members and supporters and get to the point.

The MSA has always argued that its attacks on Israel are political and protected by free speech. So when the MSA depicts Israel as a Nazi state and terrorists as heroes, it is practicing free speech. The MSA in conjunction with SJP has picketed Holocaust memorials while screaming hate. But that’s not a bias incident. That’s free speech.

So why is a picture of the worst Muslim atrocity in American history a bias incident?

If the MSA has the right to desecrate the Holocaust without it being a bias incident, if it has the right to accuse Jewish students of being Nazis, why is accusing the MSA of being linked to terrorism a hate crime?

Especially when it’s true.

Front Page

Algeria: Obama’s Chickens Come Home to Roost

OBAMA-articleLarge-450x326By Robert Spencer

Jeremiah Wright was right after all. The Algeria jihad attack proves it.

Not long after the 9/11 jihad attacks, Barack Obama’s mentor and friend, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, preached a sermon in which he uttered the now-notorious words: “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Wright meant, of course, that the U.S. had brought the attack upon itself by its own acts of violence against others: “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye… and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards.”

In a certain sense Wright was right: the U.S. did bring 9/11 on itself – but not in the way that he thought. The jihadists who destroyed the Twin Towers and damaged the Pentagon had not been brooding about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and no action by the U.S. did or could have justified the mass murder those jihadists perpetrated. If it could be truly said that the U.S. brought 9/11 on itself in any way, it was only by failing to recognize the implications of and to confront the ideology behind the jihad attacks that immediately preceded it.

There was an abundance of indicators of what was coming. In December 1988, an Islamic jihadist murdered 259 people, including 189 Americans, by bringing down Pam Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. In February 1993, Islamic jihadists murdered six people and wounded over a thousand in their first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers. In June 1996, Islamic jihadists murdered nineteen people and wounded 515, including 240 Americans, in a bombing at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In August 1998, Islamic jihadists bombed the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, murdering 291, including 12 Americans, in Nairobi, and murdering ten more and wounding 77 in Dar es Salaam. In October 2000, Islamic jihadists bombed the USS Cole in port at Aden, Yemen, murdering seventeen sailors and wounding 39.

In response to all this, the U.S. lobbed a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan and took out a chemical weapons factory (or aspirin factory, depending on one’s source) in Sudan, and did little more. No serious attempt was made to come to grips with the full nature and magnitude of the ideology that inspired those jihad attacks, and to work to neutralize its violent potential. And so it would have been more surprising if the 9/11 attacks hadn’t happened than that they did.

So it is today. Barack Obama has overseen the installation of Sharia regimes in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. While paying lip service to the importance of distinguishing jihadists from genuine democratic forces in Syria and elsewhere, the Obama administration has offered no criteria for doing this. And now al-Qaeda jihadists in Algeria have carried out a brazen assault on BP’s natural gas plant in that country, killing at least eighty-one people and demonstrating anew the falsehood of Barack Obama’s recent claim that in Afghanistan “we achieved our central goal … or have come very close to achieving our central goal, which is to de-capacitate al-Qaeda, to dismantle them, to make sure that they can’t attack us again.”

Read more at Front Page