Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category

h1

Moscow Suicide Bombers

March 29, 2010

The Growing Threat from Female Suicide Bombers

IPT News
March 29, 2010

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1882/the-growing-threat-from-female-suicide-bombers

Two women believed to be Chechen rebels blew themselves up in Moscow’s metro during morning rush hour Monday, killing at least 35 people and injuring 100 more.

Law enforcement officials in Washington and New York beefed up security in their respective subway systems in response.

The attacks at Lubyanka and Park Kultyty stations come on the heels of a recent threat assessment issued by the Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency.

The Investigative Project has reviewed the sensitive, but unclassified, assessment, Female Suicide Bombers, which puts the attacks in Russia in the context of a broader threat. Referencing open source reporting, the primary finding of the threat assessment is that:

“al Qa’ida terror cells have trained a group of female suicide bombers to attack Western targets including airlines. These women may have a non Arab appearance and may be traveling on Western passports.”

These “bombshells” are part of an evolving terrorist threat challenging U.S. law enforcement to reassess not only the physical and psychological characteristics of terrorists but also the methods available for concealing explosives.

As the report details, while the Moscow bombing is the most recent, it falls into a long line of attacks by female suicide bombers. “Since 1985, there have been in excess of 262 women suicide bombers,” it says.

The first known female suicide bomber may have been 16 year old Sana’a Youcef Mehaidli, a member of the secular Syrian Social Nationalist Party. On April 9, 1985, Mehaidli drove an explosive laden truck into an Israeli Defense Force convoy, killing two soldiers and injuring another two.

On May 21, 1991, Thenmozhi Rajaratnam a female militant with the Tamil Tigers, carried out a suicide bombing which resulted in the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Of interest, the Tamil Tigers have used more female suicide bombers than any other militant group.

In July 1996, the Kurdistan Workers Party, utilizing a female suicide bomber, attacked a military parade marching through the eastern town of Tunceli, Turkey. As Turkish soldiers were walking by, an apparently pregnant woman stepped from the crowd, revealed that she was carrying a bomb and not a baby under her dress, and detonated it, killing nine and injuring 20 others.

Between 2000 and 2004, female Chechen rebels, known as “Black Widows” repeatedly attacked Russian military targets on subways, at concerts and on airlines. For example, two women, dressed head-to-toe in black, carried out an attack on an annual music festival in July 2003, killing 14 people. Both bombers tried to enter the concert but were denied entry, and instead detonated the explosives at the venue’s entrance.

On May 1, 2008, a female suicide bomber from al Qaida in Iraq blew herself up at a wedding reception in Baghdad. The bomber, imitating pregnancy, detonated the explosives while members of the passing wedding party played music and danced.

A November 2008 attack in Baghdad which left five people dead and 17 wounded was carried out by a female suicide bomber outside the green zone in Baghdad. The attack occurred as people were waiting to go through a security checkpoint.

In February of 2010, a female suicide bomber walking among Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad detonated an explosive belt, killing at least 54 people and wounding more than 122. The bomber hid the explosives underneath an abaya, and detonated the bomb while waiting with other women to be searched by female security guards.

Reviewing these and other cases, the Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination, identified the following commonalities among female suicide bombers:

  • The majority of female suicide bombers are young, primarily between the ages of 17 and 24, however, the overall range in age for female suicide bombers is from 15-64.
  • Female suicide bombers come from various educational, religious, social, and personal backgrounds.
  • Education places a role, with the “more educated” females such as lawyers, paramedics, or students accounting for the greatest percentage of suicide attacks.
  • Most tend to be of average economic status and are rarely impoverished.
  • Some may be “dishonored” through sexual indiscretion, or unable to produce children.
  • Some appear motivated by revenge or grief from losing husbands or children.

While their socioeconomic background and motivations may vary, one thing is clear. Terrorist groups have been more than happy to welcome female militants into the fold. Both Osama bin Laden and Egyptian radical cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi have endorsed the recruitment of women to attack U.S. and Western interests. Even Hamas, which initially forbade the use of female operatives, sponsored female suicide attacks, acknowledging females suicide bombers as fellow martyrs.

Female Terrorists Pose New Obstacles

With female suicide bombers becoming more and more common, it is important to realize that not only will females have different – or possibly greater – access to particular locations, but they will be able to conceal bombs in different ways. As the threat assessment explains:

“[T]he continued use of female suicide bombers indicates that terrorists judge this tactic as effective in increasing defenses and thwarting security measures, referring to the advantage that female suicide bombers have over male counterparts in their ability to conceal explosives as well as their capacity to approach their targets with less scrutiny.”

Nowhere are these benefits clearer than in a recent story detailing how terrorists could use exploding breast implants to blow of airplanes.

In the past, terrorist groups primarily utilized many of the same mechanisms that were available for male suicide bombers. As the threat assessment demonstrates, explosive devices concealed on women in the past had the following characteristics:

  • A simple toggle or push button switch commonly used to complete the electronic circuit. If the individual was hesitant, the device could be triggered remotely allowing an experienced cadre to retain control until the desired detonation time.
  • Included shrapnel, such as nails, glass, fragments, marbles, or other small metal pieces. In many suicide attacks, the dispersal of fragments is the primary mechanism that causes death.
  • Closely attacked to the body by use of a vest or belt. Explosives have also been concealed in a backpack or pocket book.

But now, terrorist groups are taking advantage of the “benefits” of using women to carry explosives. A recent news account revealed that MI5 discovered that doctors have trained at Britain’s leading hospitals and have returned to their own countries to fit individuals with surgical implants filled with explosives. Reportedly, al Qa’ida has already experimented with placing PETN in plastic bags and surgically implanting them in female’s breasts to give the impression they have undergone breast augmentation.

Monday’s attack in Moscow wasn’t the first example of female suicide bombers, and as the threat assessment reveals, it is not likely to be the last. U.S. law enforcement officials recognize that the deadly tactic one day may make its way to America.

h1

VIDEO: What a Billion Muslims Really Think

March 8, 2010
h1

DOJ: Department Of Jihad?

February 26, 2010

DOJ: Department Of Jihad?

Investor’s Business Daily | 25 Feb. 10

War On Terror: The Justice Department employs nine lawyers previously involved in the defense of terrorist detainees. This is a colossal conflict of interest. Just whose side are they on?

From the dropping of a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party to the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed in a civilian court within blocks of where the World Trade Center once stood, the actions and attitudes of the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder toward the thugs and terrorists who threaten us has grown curiouser and curiouser.

We may now have a clue as to why. Last November, Sen. Charles Grassley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department how many of its lawyers had defended terrorist detainees over whom the department holds sway.

Grassley knew from earlier press reports of two such lawyers who worked on behalf of detainees at the liberal organization Human Rights Watch. He wanted to know how many more there were. Last Friday, Holder answered nine.

“To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees,” Holder said in a letter dated Feb. 18. “Four others contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.”

So the decision to Mirandize the Christmas bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab, and to quickly get him lawyered up was made by a department populated by leftist lawyers who believe terror is a law enforcement matter and who have tried to get off those actively trying to kill us.

We still have no official answer to what the Justice Department would do if Osama bin Laden were captured.

“It’s like they’re bringing al-Qaida lawyers inside the Department of Justice,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of the plane driven by terrorists into the Pentagon, following KSM’s plan.

We still have not been told all the lawyers’ names. Like the detainees they represented, presumably they have the right to remain silent. So much for transparency.

Lawyers in private practice are free to choose their clients and their reasons for defending them. But these lawyers are in the employ of the American people and have the task of prosecuting those who try to kill them. Some chose to defend enemies who are making war on America. We have a right to know who they are, who their clients were and why they defended them.

As Michelle Malkin reports, Holder is a former partner at Covington & Burling, a law firm that contributed more than 3,000 hours to detainee litigation in 2007 alone. The firm has worked on behalf of a dozen Yemenite detainees who are seeking civilian trials on American soil.

Holder played a central role in the granting of clemency to 16 FALN terrorists in 1999, when he worked for the Clinton Justice Department. The terrorists claimed responsibility for more than 130 bombings and incendiary attacks in the U.S. and Puerto Rico from 1974 to 1983, killing six and wounding scores.

As deputy attorney general, Holder was responsible for signing off on all clemency matters forwarded to the president. In this case, he recommended that clemency be granted despite vehement opposition from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons and his own Justice Department.

We are reminded of the case of Lynne Stewart, attorney for Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “blind sheikh” who was the architect of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. She was later found guilty of charges she had illegally “facilitated and concealed communications” between Rahman and his fellow terrorists.

We wonder if she could have found a job in the Holder Justice Department.

h1

Video: Progressive Islam | Tom Trento | Florida Security Council

February 24, 2010

Dear friends,  Please watch this important video and pass this link to your email contact list.  Thanks

SHORT LINK: http://tinyurl.com/yefe6fk

ORIGINAL LINK: https://bijenkorf.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/video-progressive-islam-tom-trento-florida-security-council/

h1

Lord Pearson: Free Speech| Geert Wilders

February 23, 2010
h1

Mark Steyn: The Absurd Trial of Geert Wilders

February 19, 2010
Canada’s only national weekly current affairs magazine.

The absurd trial of Geert Wilders

Feb 18, 2010 by Mark Steyn

The absurd trial of Geert Wilders

At a certain level, the trial of Geert Wilders for the crime of “group insult” of Islam is déjà vu all over again. For as the spokesperson for the Openbaar Ministerie put it, “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct. What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”

Ah, yes, in the Netherlands, as in Canada, the truth is no defence. My Dutch is a little rusty but I believe the “Openbaar Ministerie” translates in English to the Ministry for Openly Barring People. Whoops, my mistake. It’s the prosecution service of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. But it shares with Canada’s “human rights” commissions an institutional contempt for the truth.

As for “Wilders’s witnesses,” he submitted a list of 18, and the Amsterdam court rejected no fewer than 15 of them. As with Commissar MacNaughton and her troika of pseudo-judges presiding over the Maclean’s trial in British Columbia, it’s easier to make the rules up as you go along.

And in Amsterdam the eventual verdict doesn’t really matter any more than it did here. As Khurrum Awan, head sock puppet for Mohamed Elmasry, crowed to the Canadian Arab News, even though the Canadian Islamic Congress struck out in three different jurisdictions in their attempt to criminalize my writing, the suits cost this magazine (he says) two million bucks, and thereby “attained our strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.” Likewise, whether Mijnheer Wilders is convicted or acquitted, a lot of politicians, publishers, writers and filmmakers will get the message: steer clear of the subject of Islam unless you want your life consumed.

But at that point comparisons end. Had the CIC triumphed at our trial in Vancouver, the statutory penalty under the B.C. “Human Rights” Code would have prevented Maclean’s ever publishing anything on Islam, Europe, demography, terrorism and related issues by me or anybody of a similar disposition ever again. I personally would have been rendered legally unpublishable in Canada in perpetuity. But so what? I’m an obscure writer, and my fate is peripheral to that of the Dominion itself.

Geert Wilders, by contrast, is one of the most popular politicians in the Netherlands, and his fate is central to the future of his kingdom and his continent. He is an elected member of parliament—and, although he’s invariably labelled “far right” in news reports, how far he is depends on where you’re standing: his party came second in last year’s elections for the European Parliament, and a poll of the Dutch electorate in December found it tied for first place. Furthermore, if you read the indictment against him, you’ll see that among other things Wilders is being prosecuted for is proposing an end to “non-Western immigration” to the Netherlands: the offending remarks were made in response to a direct question as to what his party would do in its first days in office. So the Dutch state is explicitly prosecuting the political platform of the most popular opposition party in the country, and attempting to schedule the trial for its own electoral advantage. That’s the sort of thing free societies used to leave to Mobutu, Ferdinand Marcos and this week’s Generalissimo-for-Life.

To put it in Canadian terms, it’s like the Crown hauling Michael Ignatieff into court. Well, except for the bit about being the most popular politician in the country and ahead in the polls and whatnot. But imagine if Iggy was less tin-eared and inept and his numbers were terrific—and then the Ministry of Justice announced it had decided to prosecute him for his policy platform. That’s what’s happening in the Netherlands.

It gets better. The judge in his wisdom has decided to deny the defendant the level of courtroom security they afforded to Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh. Wilders lives under armed guard because of explicit death threats against him by Mr. Bouyeri and other Muslims. But he’s the one put on trial for incitement. His movie about Islam, Fitna, is deemed to be “inflammatory,” whereas a new film by Willem Stegeman, De moord op Geert Wilders (The Assassination of Geert Wilders), is so non-inflammatory and entirely acceptable that it’s been produced and promoted by a government-funded radio station. You’d almost get the impression that, as the website Gates of Vienna suggested, the Dutch state is channelling Henry II: “Who will rid me of this turbulent blond?”

There’s no shortage of volunteers. In the Low Countries, whenever anyone seeks to discuss Islam outside the very narrow bounds of multicultural political discourse, they wind up either banned (Belgium’s Vlaams Blok), forced into exile (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) or killed (Pim Fortuyn).

It’s remarkable how speedily “the most tolerant country in Europe,” in a peculiarly repellent strain of coercive appeasement, has adopted “shoot the messenger” as an all-purpose cure-all for “Islamophobia.” To some of us, the Netherlands means tulips, clogs, windmills, fingers in the dike. To others, it means marijuana cafés, long-haired soldiers, legalized hookers, fingers in the dike. But the contemporary reality is an increasingly incoherent polity where gays are bashed, uncovered women get jeered at, and you can’t do The Diary of Anne Frank as your school play lest the Gestapo walk-ons are greeted by audience cries of “She’s in the attic!” Speaking as a bona fide far-right nutcase, I rather resent the label’s export to Holland: Pim Fortuyn wasn’t “right-wing,” he was a gay hedonist; Theo van Gogh was an anti-monarchist coke-snorting nihilist; Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a secular liberal feminist; Geert Wilders says he’s opposed to Islam because of its hostility to gay equality, whereas the usual rap against us far-right extremists is that we want the godless sodomites to roast in hell.

It’s not “ironic” that the most liberal country in western Europe should be the most advanced in its descent into a profoundly illiberal hell. It was entirely foreseeable. Geert Wilders is stating the obvious: a society that becomes more Muslim will have fewer gays. Last year, the Rainbow Palace, formerly Amsterdam’s most popular homo-hotel (relax, that’s the Dutch word for it), announced it was renaming itself the Sharm and reorienting itself to Islamic tourism. Or as the website allah.eu put it: “Gay Hotel Turns Muslim.” As a headline in the impeccably non-far-right Spiegel wondered: “How much Allah can the Old Continent bear?” It’s an interesting question, albeit if an increasingly verboten one. The Wilders show trial is important because it will determine whether the subject can be discussed openly by mainstream politicians and public figures, or whether it will be forced underground and manifest itself in more violent ways.

Yet, despite its significance, the trial has received relatively little coverage in the Western media, in part because, for those of a multiculti bent, there’s no easy way to blur the reality—that this is a political prosecution by a thought police so stupid they don’t realize they’re delegitimizing the very institutions of the state. Still, the BBC gave it their best shot, concluding their report thus: “Correspondents say his Freedom Party (PVV), which has nine MPs in the lower house of parliament, has built its popularity largely by tapping into the fear and resentment of Muslim immigrants.”

Gotcha. This democracy business is all very well, but let’s face it, the people are saps, gullible boobs, racist morons, knuckle-dragging f–kwits. One-man-one-vote is fine in theory, but next thing you know some slicker’s “tapping into” the morons’ “fears and resentments” and cleaning up at the polls.

Strange how it always comes back to a contempt for the people. Whenever the electorate departs from the elite’s pieties, whether in the Netherlands or in Massachusetts last month, it’s because some wily demagogue like, er, Scott Brown has been playing on the impressionable hicks’ “fears and resentments.” To the statist bullies at Canada’s “Human Rights” Commissions, their powers to regulate speech are necessary to prevent hate-mongers like me tapping into the fears and resentments of the Dominion’s millions of birdbrained boobs. Yes, that would be you, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmoe of 22 Dufferin Gardens. Sure, you’ve voted for the Liberals every year since Expo, but c’mon, in your heart you know even you might be…susceptible…impressionable.

In the old days—divine right of kings, rule by patrician nobility—it was easier. But today’s establishment is obliged to pay at least lip service to popular sovereignty. So it has to behave more artfully. You’ll still have your vote; it’s just that the guy you wanted to give it to is on trial, and his platform’s been criminalized.

To return to where we came in, what does it mean when the Ministry of Justice proudly declares that the truth is no defence? When the law stands in explicit opposition to the truth, freeborn peoples should stand in opposition to the law. Because, as the British commentator Pat Condell says, “When the truth is no defence, there is no defence”—and what we are witnessing is a heresy trial. The good news is that the Openbaar Ministerie is doing such a grand job with its pilot program of apostasy prosecutions you’ll barely notice when sharia is formally adopted.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/18/the-absurd-trial-of-geert-wilders/ printed on Feb 19, 2010

h1

Kamal Saleem Testimony – Rabbi Jonathan Bernis

February 17, 2010
h1

Kamal Saleem – Why I Left Islam

February 17, 2010

Part 1 of 2

Part 2 of 2

h1

Enemy No. 1: Anwar The American

February 9, 2010

Enemy No. 1: Anwar The American

9 Feb. 2010 | IBD

Awlaki in 2008: Why isn't he in the cross hairs of our drones? APAwlaki in 2008: Why isn’t he in the cross hairs of our drones? AP View Enlarged Image

War On Terror: Upstaging Osama Bin Laden as the most dangerous man in the world may be an American recruiter for al-Qaida: Anwar Awlaki. So why’s he talking to Al-Jazeera instead of interrogators?

The radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar Awlaki told the Arab TV network that he supported the failed Christmas Day airliner attack because “the American people have participated in all the crimes of their government.” The turncoat added: “Some 300 Americans are nothing compared to the thousands of Muslims they have killed.”

Awlaki also advised the Fort Hood terrorist, whom he called “a hero.” The two exchanged some 20 e-mails. But he is best known for privately meeting with some of the 9/11 hijackers.

The Christmas crotch-bomber told federal authorities that Awlaki directed him to carry out his airliner attack, which means he has gone operational.

Both U.S. and Yemeni intelligence believe Awlaki met with suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in Yemen late last year, and may have even helped outfit the bomber. There are also reports that Awlaki, born 38 years ago in New Mexico, has given his blessing to roomsful of blue-eyed, blonde-haired Americans preparing for suicide missions against their own country.

If true, this is chilling stuff. Yet the administration seems hesitant to go after Awlaki, who is holed up in a tribal region of Yemen. Some say that because he’s a U.S. citizen, the CIA cannot target him with a drone-fired missile.

Not so. After 9/11, President Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the U.S.

In fact, U.S. citizen Kamal Derwish was killed by a CIA missile strike in November 2002. U.S. spooks knew he was in a car with six other al-Qaida operatives driving through the Yemen desert. And they sent a Hellfire missile after them.

The CIA should put Awlaki in the cross hairs of a drone as a wartime imperative. His family is in touch with him and knows his whereabouts. Will Yemeni authorities help us triangulate on his location?

Political pressure is key. His father, a former Yemeni minister and current adviser to the Yemeni president, is well-connected, and recently made an impassioned plea to the U.S. to spare his son’s life. It’s a little too late for that.

White House national security adviser John Brennan recently testified that “we’re very concerned about Mr. Awlaki.”

Really? Then why hasn’t he even been added to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list, alongside another U.S. citizen — Adam Gadahn, the “American al-Qaida”?

Gadahn’s crime is issuing al-Qaida propaganda from a safe house somewhere inside Pakistan. There is no evidence he is directly involved in terrorist operations.

Yet he was indicted for treason and material support to al-Qaida, and now has a $1 million bounty on his head.

At the very least, the feds could add Awlaki to the Most Wanted list. He should be made Public Enemy No. 1.

Awlaki is the Pied Piper of jihadists, turning up in case after case. Court records cite Awlaki and his jihadi Web site as the source of inspiration for much of the homegrown terror plaguing the country. Awlaki also inspired the Fort Dix Six, who plotted to kill U.S. troops by posing as pizza delivery drivers; and the 20 Minneapolis students who joined al-Qaida’s jihad in Somalia, including the first known American suicide bomber.

Of all the terrorists arrested since 9/11, none poses a greater threat than this bloodthirsty American preacher, who gets hundreds, if not thousands, of young Muslim men jacked up for jihad, making him a lethal force multiplier for the enemy.

h1

IMPORTANT READ: Bare Warning

February 4, 2010

Bare Warning

IBD| 4 Feb. 2010

Homeland Security: When it comes to foul balls, a “heads up!” is no big deal. But when the government warns of imminent and “certain” attack by al-Qaida, complacency is not an option.

A chilling spectacle just took place before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Panel Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked, “What is the likelihood of another terrorist-attempted attack on the U.S. homeland in the next three to six months, high or low?”

And one by one, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, CIA Director Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller all agreed an attack was “certain.”

But log onto the Department of Homeland Security’s Web site and all seems fairly calm. The first news item listed says, “Secretary Napolitano Announces More than $23 Million in Recovery Act Funding for Fire Station Construction Grants.” And three of the other four news items on the main page tout the ways the department’s $56.3 billion fiscal year 2011 budget request would be spent.

You have to look for the fine print and click a couple of times to find out the nation’s terror alert condition — yellow or “elevated,” like during most of the time since 9/11.

But if an attack is “certain” as the U.S. intelligence community tells us (but only after being asked by a senator), then shouldn’t there be a bit more urgency than this?

Far from scrambling to stave off sure and impending disaster, this administration is bragging that its ill-advised policies haven’t yet done harm.

We shouldn’t be releasing anyone in our custody who could end up returning to terrorist activities, but White House counterterrorism chief John O. Brennan was touting “significant improvements to the detainee review process” for Gitmo prisoners in a Monday letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Even if the recidivism rate is zero among the dozens of POWs that have been released, as Brennan reports, we saw on Christmas Day that it only takes one terrorist to kill hundreds. This is exactly what would have happened over the skies near Detroit had a little luck and a lot of guts from passengers not been on our side.

The administration boasts that Undiebomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is now “cooperating” — as if they didn’t blow the chance for a treasure trove of lifesaving information from him about al-Qaida’s structure and future plots by reading him his Miranda rights, getting him a lawyer, and allowing him to clam up less than an hour after being detained.

The president’s answer to legitimate unease about homeland security is to ask the concerned to “put aside the schoolyard taunts about who’s tough.”

Last April, the president visited CIA headquarters to boost morale. “Speaking before some of the very intelligence officers he had publicly accused of complicity in torture,” as Bush White House chief speechwriter Marc Thiessen writes in his new book defending the CIA’s enhanced interrogation, “Courting Disaster,” President Obama admitted to them that under his new policies, “you’ve got a harder job.”

“The president has, by his own admission, forced the CIA to operate with one hand tied behind its back” — Obama’s own analogy — and “made the agency’s job of protecting us from terror harder,” adds Thiessen.

At the risk of being accused of a schoolyard taunt, does the certainty of another attack have anything to do with one of America’s hands being tied?

h1

Mosque University | Geert Wilders

February 3, 2010

Mosque University
Mike Adams
Monday, February 01, 2010

Dutch politician Geert Wilders is being tried in Amsterdam over some controversial remarks he made about terrorism and Islam. I’m glad I live in the United States of America, where such a trial would be prohibited by the First Amendment. I’m also glad I don’t teach at Temple University in Philadelphia, where students now have to pay an unconstitutional after-the-fact security fee levied by the university. This fee was for hosting none other than Geert Wilders.

The notion that it is permissible to charge a student group extra fees for security simply because a speaker’s views are controversial (read: not approved of by university administrators) might be acceptable at the University of Havana or the University of Beijing. But it should never happen in America.

Geert Wilders came to Temple University on October 20, 2009. Wilders was invited in the wake of a controversy surrounding his film “Fitna” which was released in 2008. The film was controversial because it features passages of the Koran interspersed with scenes of violence on the part of Muslims. The movie was shown during the presentation at Temple. Extra security was provided and there was no disturbance.

On December 3, Temple University Purpose (TUP) – the group that hosted Wilders -was surprised with a bill from Temple for $800 for a “Security Officer.” This came with the explanation that the charge was for the costs “to secure the room and building.”

TUP Interim President Brittany Walsh pointed out that Temple had said – prior to the event – the university would pay any extra security costs. But, after repeated emails, she has received no substantive reply. This is odd because, as one can see from their mission statement, TUP is not a conservative group – the type most likely to be singled out for such treatment:

“The mission of Temple University Purpose is to advocate for justice and equality of oppressed and underrepresented populations. The Temple University Purpose welcomes the whole of the student body of Temple University’s Main campus schools. Demonstrated through advocacy, on behalf of vulnerable populations, towards the eradication of oppression, and guided by the NASW Code of Ethics, the Temple University Purpose honors diversity and is dedicated to social change, social justice, and social unity. The Temple University Purpose provides an open forum in which conventional and unconventional views are exchanged and challenged to enhance understanding of and appreciation for others’ strife, values, devotions, and passions. The voice of every member is most valued, shall always be heard, and genuinely considered, as it is the foundation of the Temple University Purpose. Through active participation in the community, it is possible to contribute to the development of not only one as an empathic human being but, also, to the growth of our immediate and surrounding society. The Temple University Purpose firmly believes in embracing and challenging scholarly discussion of most-critical issues and debates on present developments concerning the open field of social work and society in all parts of our country and world.”

Obviously, this group is being punished financially because it hosted a speaker likely to offend a particularly volatile segment of the population. As a consequence, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has written to the president of Temple. In that letter, FIRE cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), which says, “Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”

Temple is a public university and is bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions. If they are smart, they will go the way of four other public universities—the University of Colorado at Boulder; University of Massachusetts Amherst; University of California, Berkeley; and University of Arizona—and abandon such security fees before they get sued.

Two years ago, Temple’s speech code was struck down by the Third Circuit. That lawsuit was handled by my friends at the Alliance Defense Fund. If the university does not begin to respect the First Amendment, additional humiliation and litigation are certain to follow.

My message to Temple University President Ann Weaver Hart is simple: You have been warned. Reverse your course of action or face the consequences. If you do not think I am serious, just ask former Georgia Tech President Wayne Clough.

h1

Video: Muslims Threat to Geert Wilders

February 3, 2010
h1

Video: Refresh: Geert Wilders’ Warning to America

February 3, 2010
h1

Jihad in Haiti

February 1, 2010

Islamic Relief USA and the Islamic Circle of North America, both groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” are operating in Haiti — ostensibly working in relief efforts, but no doubt doing a good bit of dawah on the side. Creeping Sharia has the story (thanks to herr Oyal) – source: jihadwatch.org

h1

The Greening Of Osama Bin Laden

February 1, 2010

The Greening Of Osama Bin Laden | IBD: 1 Feb. 2010

Global warming fanatics have an unwelcome new ally: Osama Bin Laden. APGlobal warming fanatics have an unwelcome new ally: Osama Bin Laden. AP View Enlarged Image

Al-Qaida: Global warming fanatics have an unwelcome new ally: Osama bin Laden. Unlike enviro-leftists, the terror master recognizes that the green agenda can cripple the U.S. economy.

In the Obama worldview, fighting climate change will “finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.” In the Osama worldview, it will “bring the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.

The president spoke those words to Congress last week during his State of the Union message; the head of al-Qaida was delivering his latest rant for broadcast to his followers.

The president and the Democrats running Congress fail to see the dangers that environmentalist extremism poses to the U.S. But bin Laden has concluded it is a powerful weapon that can destroy us.

The Saudi-born patriarch of Islamist terrorism, from whatever cave he currently calls home, devoted his entire latest audiotape message to global warming. “Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality,” bin Laden declared. “All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.”

Bin Laden even bashed ex-President George W. Bush for opposing the Kyoto Protocol at the behest of big business; he must have gotten hold of the Democratic National Committee’s talking points.

How do we prevent the promised worldwide calamity of temperatures going up and up? “Drastic solutions” are in order according to the reclusive al-Qaida chief, as opposed to “solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change.”

The world must “stop consuming American products,” he advised, and “we should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible.”

That will have “grave ramifications,” bin Laden admitted, “but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America.” Doing so would have the added bonus of hurting U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, he added.

As George Mason University atmospheric physicist Fred Singer and Hudson Institute agricultural economist Dennis Avery point out in their book, “Unstoppable Global Warming,” Kyoto would create some jobs, “but far more would be lost through the economic stagnation and the higher taxes required to ration energy use.”

As Singer and Avery note, Americans “have been reluctant to commit the United States to the cost of building an entirely new energy system when the old energy system was still working, the alternative fuel systems recommended by environmentalists were expensive and erratic, and the science of global warming was still uncertain.”

Of course, in the wake of last year’s Climategate e-mail scandal, in which hacked communications between climatologists revealed the intentional skewing of scientific evidence regarding warming, plus other tendentious misconduct, the science backing climate change alarmism is more uncertain than ever.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., former chairman of and now ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, argued on the Senate floor in November that “developing countries like China and India will never be masochistic enough to subject their economies to the West’s climate neuroses. Meanwhile, Europe has proved with Kyoto that the only emissions quotas it will accept are those that don’t actually have to be met.”

He added, “the U.S. will not support a global warming treaty that will significantly damage the American economy, cost American jobs, and impose the largest tax increase in American history.”

Inhofe spoke for many when he said that “given the unemployment rate of 10%, and given all of the out of control spending in Washington, the last thing we need is another thousand-page bill that increases costs and ships jobs overseas, all with no impact on climate change.”

Environmentalist extremism has made the leap from a politically-correct fetish of leftist utopians who resent capitalists to an economic weapon highly recommended by America’s international Public Enemy No.1.

Who wants to bet it’s only a matter of time before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad follows bin Laden’s recommendation and echoes the call to use global warming policies to topple the Great Satan from its position as the world’s lone superpower?

A bad treaty, after all, can be nearly as destructive as a nuke.

h1

IBD: Miranda Wrongs

January 25, 2010

Miranda Wrongs

IBD: 25 Jan 2010

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair says just because the new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group failed to swing into action in the...Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair says just because the new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group failed to swing into action in the… View Enlarged Image

Homeland Security: For months, our new “High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group” has supposedly been on call. Why was it AWOL before the Christmas Day bomber was improperly read his right to remain silent?

The White House is against Bush administration-style enhanced interrogation. But is it so dominated by the quasi-constitutional mind-set of the American Civil Liberties Union that it’s really against any kind of interrogation?

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week that “we should have automatically deployed” the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), set up by President Obama last year, against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The Nigerian is the suspected al-Qaida agent who allegedly tried to blow up a U.S. jet with nearly 300 passengers aboard on Dec. 25.

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

CAIR wants lawmaker to meet with Islamic leaders

January 25, 2010

PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS:


Senator’s call to profile angers ‘Muslim Mafia’


CAIR wants lawmaker to meet with Islamic leaders to explain


Posted: January 23, 2010

By Art Moore


WorldNetDaily


Sen. James Inhofe, R, Okla., at hearing Thursday

The Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Oklahoma chapter is calling on Sen. James Inhofe, R.-Okla., to meet with Muslim leaders to discuss his statement during a congressional hearing in favor of using religion and ethnicity as factors in profiling airline passengers.

“It is disturbing to hear a member of the United States Senate suggest that entire religious and ethnic groups should automatically be considered terror suspects,” said CAIR-OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi. “Our nation’s leaders have a duty not to exacerbate the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in American society.”


Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Geert Wilders Dutch Trial Update (21 Jan. 10)

January 21, 2010

Source: atlasshrugs.com

UPDATE: Here is a translation of Wilders’ compelling remarks. Contribute to Wilders’ legal fund. He fights for all of us.

Geert Wilders’ personal speech at pre-trial hearing

Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.
I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial.

Here’s what happened today in the kangaroo court…………report from Evelyn Markus from Holland:

Gwtrial1Gwwilders2

Gwwilders3

Geert Wilders wants to bring in 17 witnesses, from Holland, UK, Israel, and US, among them Wafa Sultan, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Afshin Ellian, Arabist Hans Jansen, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi (who put a fatwa on Wafa), Mohammed Bouyeri (who killed Theo van Gogh) and imam Fawaz from Holland, who put a fatwa on Ayaan. The public prosecutors asked the judges to downsize the list and to skip Andrew Bostom, Mohammed Bouyeri and some others.The public prosecutors only want to bring in Geert Wilders as their witness, to which Wilder’s lawyer objected. Geert wants to make a statement in court, but doesn’t want to be interviewed by the public prosecutors. He has the right to keep silent when they interview him.

The session has just ended. At the end of the session the judges gave Geert the opportunity for closing remarks. Geert spoke from the bottom of his heart and passionately askedthe court to defend freedom in the Netherlands . He also stated: if expressions reflect the truth, how could they be criminal? So I ask this court to allow me to bring all my witnesses, so I will have the chance to prove I speak the truth in my expressions [about Islam].

The judges will get back with their decision on the number of witnesses, the timetable and the exact location of the trial in a public session on February 3.

h1

Geert Wilders Trial Update

January 20, 2010

IN

Dutch far-right MP on trial over anti-Islam remarks

Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:24pm IST

By Aaron Gray-Block

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – Right-wing Dutch MP Geert Wilders said on Wednesday that freedom of speech in his country was threatened, as he went on trial in Amsterdam charged with inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.

The Freedom Party leader, who has faced death threats over his political views, made the film “Fitna” in 2008 which accused the Koran of inciting violence and mixed images of terrorist attacks with quotations from the Islamic holy book.

He was also charged because of his outspoken remarks in the media, such as an opinion piece in a Dutch daily in which he compared Islam to fascism and the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf”.

“I believe in my heart and soul that freedom in the Netherlands is being threatened,” Wilders told the court. “It is not only our right, but our obligation as free people to speak out against every ideology that restricts freedom.”

In a five-minute speech to the court in which he also quoted Thomas Jefferson, author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Wilders predicted future generations would ask how “we in 2010, in this place, in this room” defended freedom.

The prosecutor, reacting to the many complaints about Wilders, originally said he was protected by the right to free speech, but a court overruled him and ordered that Wilders be charged. The MP faces a maximum of one year and three months imprisonment if convicted on both counts.

Both prosecution and defence said the case lies at the heart of the constitutional state, exploring the line between the right to freedom of speech and the ban on discrimination in the traditionally tolerant Netherlands.

Defence lawyer Bram Moszkowicz challenged the court’s jurisdiction and the prosecution’s case, saying that the Supreme Court should handle the case because Wilders was a politician.

“Wilders has made all his comments in his capacity as a member of parliament,” Moszkowicz said, adding that Wilders had the right to comment on developments in society.

Prosecutor Birgit van Roessel said Wilders’ remarks must be tested against the “existing legal framework.”

COMBATIVE

A fierce opponent of Islam in European culture, Wilders — with his trademark blonde hair — is popular among Dutch voters worried about immigration and its impact on Dutch society.

The Freedom Party became the second-largest Dutch party in the European Parliament last year, and recent polls indicated it could become the biggest party in the Dutch parliament in national elections due in May 2011.

“I remain combative and still convinced that this political process will only lead to an acquittal,” Wilders has said.

Outside the court, a crowd of protesters gathered behind police barriers to voice support for Wilders, carrying banners saying “Freedom Yes” and “Wilders trial, a political trial”.

An anti-racism group placed 100 comments by Wilders online at http://www.watwilwilders.nl to back its allegation that he is responsible for xenophobia and discrimination and that his remarks are not only criticism of a religion.

Official figures show Muslims made up about 5 percent of the Dutch population in 2007-08.

The court must now rule on the challenge to its jurisdiction and adjourned the case to Feb. 3 when it will decide how to proceed.

Besides expert witnesses, Moszkowicz plans to call Mohammed Bouyeri, the convicted killer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Wilders has said Bouyeri is “living proof” that Islam inspires violence, but the prosecution is opposed to Bouyeri giving evidence.

(Additional reporting by Svebor Kranjc and Ben Berkowitz; editing by Tim Pearce)

© Thomson Reuters 2010. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

// // 0)
{
_org=”Reuters”;
Rapt_Track(“z=india.reuters.com/printer/article,as=” + raptAs);
}
// ]]> // //

DCSIMG

// printer > article”);
I07714.DM_tag();
// ]]>

h1

Geert Wilders Dutch Trial

January 20, 2010

Why I Stand with Geert Wilders | January 19, 2010
He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization.

By Daniel Pipes

Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure.

That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: Will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari’a)?

Wilders, 46, founder and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), is the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic identity. That’s because he and the PVV differ from most of Europe’s other nationalist, anti-immigrant parties.

The PVV is libertarian and mainstream conservative, without roots in neo-Fascism, nativism, conspiricism, antisemitism,
or other forms of extremism. (Wilders publicly emulates Ronald Reagan.) Indicative of this moderation is Wilders’s long-standing affection for Israel that includes two years’ residence in the Jewish state, dozens of visits, and his advocating the transfer of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem.

In addition, Wilders is a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands. While he opines on the full range of topics, Islam and Muslims constitute his signature issue. Overcoming the tendency of Dutch politicians to play it safe, he calls Muhammad a devil and demands that Muslims “tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands.” More broadly, he sees Islam itself as the problem, not just a virulent version of it called Islamism.

Finally, the PVV benefits from the fact that, uniquely in Europe, the Dutch are receptive to a non-nativist rejection of Shari’a. This first became apparent a decade ago, when Pim Fortuyn, a left-leaning former-Communist homosexual professor began arguing that his values and lifestyle were irrevocably threatened by the Shari’a. Fortuyn anticipated Wilders in founding his own political party and calling for a halt to Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. Following Fortuyn’s 2002 assassination by a leftist, Wilders effectively inherited his mantle and his constituency.

The PVV has done well electorally, winning 6 percent of the seats in the November 2006 national parliamentary elections and 16 percent of Dutch seats in the June 2009 European Union elections. Polls now generally show the PVV winning a plurality of votes and becoming the country’s largest party. Were Wilders to become prime minister, he could take on a leadership role for all Europe.

But he faces daunting challenges.

The Netherlands’ fractured political scene means the PVV must either find willing partners to form a governing coalition (a difficult task, given how leftists and Muslims have demonized Wilders as a “right-wing extremist”) or win a majority of the seats in parliament (a distant prospect).

Wilders must also overcome his opponents’ dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after two and a half years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor’s case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to $14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail.

Remember, he is his country’s leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement?

Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences, particularly attempts to thwart a grassroots political movement via the courts. Accordingly, the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project has worked on Wilders’s behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways. We do so convinced of the paramount importance of talking freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy.

Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably improve his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak have implications for us all.

— Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved. (nationalreview.com)

=========================================

This is my contribution to the International Free Press Society symposium on Geert Wilders. Read the full symposium here:   http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/01/the-trial-of-geert-wilders-a-symposium/

Give me liberty or …

Paris January 18 2010

Nidra Poller

“…the statements of Wilders are un-Dutch, they don’t belong to our Christian-Judaic culture…. He discriminates Moroccans because of their race and causes hate against them…. His desire to ban the Koran brings fear and terror into peoples homes… The laws against hate crimes were made in 1934, to protect the Jews in a reaction to what was happening in Germany. That is telling. Prudently, parallels can be made –these laws had a clear cut political context.” Fokko Oldenhuis, Groningen University professor of Religion and Law (Elsevier December 17, 2009)

Dutch prosecutors are going after Geert Wilders with an axe, madly determined to hack him up–mind, heart and body politic—and bury the parts under the ashes of six million exterminated European Jews. Look how far we have come since a confused UK hid Salman Rushdie under its skirts, acting on remnants of principles and hardly aware of what was at stake. Today, the courts of a European nation proudly assume the role of hatchet man for conquering Islam.

There is no justification for the persecution of Geert Wilders. He is a legitimate political figure who speaks for a growing sector of the Dutch population and represents a hope for citizens of other European countries struggling to defend civilized values on the battlefields of a frankly declared war–the jihad– which their leaders and opinion-makers are determined to hide from view. European citizens are asking their governments to set limits on Islamic encroachment–the minaret construction freeze voted in a Swiss referendum—and the will of the people sometimes reaches the ears of their elected representatives– forthcoming law against full facial veiling in France, cancellation of permit for a mega-mosque at London’s 2012 Olympic site.

Geert Wilders has played an essential role in this transmission. Precisely because the “far right extremist populist” label written up for him by jihad sources and repeated by mindless journalists does not apply. When men and women of integrity stand up to confront the Islamic assault on our civilized values, they attract broad public support. The danger in Europe today does not come from the last dredges of retrograde extreme right forces, it comes from the jihad friendly Left. Communists, socialists, and ecologists in France shamelessly court the Muslim vote and accuse the Sarkozy government of pétainisme for daring to deport illegal immigrants.

Is this the lesson Europe has drawn from the Shoah? What could be more obscene than enrolling 6 million exterminated Jews in a battle to deprive one honest upstanding legitimate popular Dutch MP of the freedom to oppose the spread of an ideology that blatantly plans the extermination of the remaining Jewish population of the world? And actively promotes the plan here and now in Europe?

If every last Muslim immigrant were deported from every European country… if Muslims to the second and third generation were stripped of their citizenship and deported… many decent people would be unfairly deprived of their acquired rights, but… the wave of violent Jew hatred that is plaguing Europe would come to a sudden halt.

Many analysts who recognize these truths regret “extreme” positions taken by Geert Wilders. They believe he would better serve the cause, and avoid prosecution, if he would tone down his rhetoric. I disagree. Pulling punches, rounding out the angles, applauding the “majority of Muslims who are moderates” though they never appear in public, making false distinctions between Islam and Islamism is getting us nowhere. The fact that the prosecution has stooped to barring the press from a landmark trial that will determine the limits of free expression is an indication of their fear of the eloquence and clarity of Geert Wilders.

We do not want to be faced in this day and age with the choice of liberty or death. But moderation is not the answer. Give me liberty or send me to bed without supper is not a rallying cry for the defenders of freedom.

Nidra Poller
nidrapol@gmail.com .AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}
============================

———
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/20/netherlands.geert.wilders/
———-

h1

Cartoon: Terrorists have the right to remain silent

January 15, 2010

h1

Navy Seals trial moved to Iraq

January 14, 2010

Navy Seals trial moved to Iraq

source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/navy_seals_trial_moved_to_iraq.html

Jane Jamison

The Newport News DailyPress.com reports :

Two of the three Navy elite commando SEALS who are facing military court martial for their arrest of an Islamic terrorist are going to have trials in Iraq so that they can exercise their right to  confront their accuser face-to-face.

Special Warfare Operater 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe, Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Julio Huertas and Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class Matthew McCabe are accused of mistreating Ahmed Hashim Abed after arresting him and denying wrongdoing in later statements to commanders.


Abed is the accused Islamo-terrorist mastermind of  the ambush, torture, murder, burning and hanging of 4 Blackwater contract personnel who were making a food delivery in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004.    The American men, most of them former U.S. military, were dragged behind vehicles, burned and hung from a Euphrates river bridge while town crowds cheered.

U.S. Military commanders, (who apparently suffer from the same “politically-correct”  illness as the President of the United States) allege that SWO2 McCabe may have punched Abed after his arrest.  The alleged “crime” of the other two SEALS is, apparently, that they didn’t rat out their fellow soldier.  Abed may have also suffered a cut lip in the incident.  Background on this story is here and here.

In the past few weeks, military prosecutors have sought to delay the trials of the SEALS and also tried to simply try the SEALS on the basis of a taped deposition of Abed.  Attorneys for the SEALS demanded the right to confront and question their Muslim terrorist accuser in person at trial.  The fact that the SEALS have to be flown to Iraq to protect their rights, their careers, their names and the SEALS’ reputation is a shameful waste of time, expense and effort.   The Christmas Day bombing attempt on an American jetliner shows the U.S. government has much more important business than prosecuting soldiers who were doing exemplary work tracking down a Muslim terrorist murder suspect.

The clock keeps ticking, the Obama administration has had plenty of time and still has more time to drop these charges and make this all go away.   American soldiers being treated like terrorists.   Terrorists being treated like soldiers.   The silence from this White House on this matter is shameful.

h1

Steven Emerson: Combating Radical Islam

January 13, 2010

Steven Emerson: Combating Radical Islam
Defeating Jihadist Terrorism

by George Michael
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2010, pp. 15-25

http://www.meforum.org/2578/steven-emerson-combating-radical-islam

On Christmas afternoon in 1992, Steven Emerson, then a staff reporter for CNN, noticed a large group of men in traditional Arab clothes congregating outside the Oklahoma City Convention Center. At first, he thought they were extras for a movie—until he remembered the date. So, he explored a bit; inside, he discovered a conference sponsored by the Muslim Arab Youth Association. The vitriol of the speakers, replete with hateful rhetoric against Jews, Israel, and America mixed with exhortations of violence toward these enemies, alarmed him. Spontaneous shouts of “Kill the Jews” and “Destroy the West” came from the audience throughout the event.[1]

Steven Emerson has emerged as a powerful independent force, working with U.S. security services while also carrying out investigations on his own in areas beyond their reach.

Worried by what he had witnessed, Emerson notified a contact in the FBI, only to be told that the agency knew nothing about the conference and also lacked a mandate to investigate it because no criminal activity had occurred or was imminent.[2] This experience indelibly impressed him, leaving a sense of government weakness and suggesting the need for a private agency to explore the threat of radical Islam within the United States.

On graduation from Brown University, Emerson (b. 1954) went to work as an analyst on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He served as an international investigator and helped shape the aid package to Israel and Egypt following the Camp David accords in 1978. He honed his skills while working for the committee until 1982, during which time he developed an abiding interest in Middle Eastern affairs.

In 1986, he joined U.S. News & World Report where he worked as a national security correspondent. During this time, he authored two books: Secret Warriors: Inside the Covert Military Operations of the Reagan Era[3] and The Fall of Pan Am 103: Inside the Lockerbie Investigation.[4] In Secret Warriors, Emerson argued that technical breakdowns, bureaucratic disarray, presidential interference, and professional jealousy contributed to the inertia of America’s elite forces.[5] This perception may have played a large role in convincing him that government alone is inadequate to the challenges of modern terrorism. In The Fall of Pan Am 103, he promoted the theory—then held by the U.S. government—that Iran was responsible for the bombing of the flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

Since that early experience in Oklahoma, Emerson has emerged as a powerful independent force who works with U.S. security services but carries out investigations on his own in areas beyond their reach. He does not take any funds from the government. In 1995, he established his own think tank, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), which has since conducted investigations into many Islamist and terrorist groups and individuals. The IPT has stirred up more hornets’ nests than many government agencies. Its acute focus has allowed it to hone in on targets that broader agencies missed. Emerson’s initiative has paid off handsomely.

New Nongovernmental Agencies Emerge

The Islamist campaign to implement Shari’a law presents a grave challenge to the United States and all Western countries. And while a security apparatus has arisen to defend against these threats, several nongovernmental bodies have emerged as critical adjuncts in the effort to identify those who work within the law to change the Western way of life.

Compared to Western Europe, the United States has an unusual approach to domestic political extremism. Since 1976, the FBI has officially conducted surveillance of extremist and potentially violent groups under the attorney general’s guidelines, established after revelations of misconduct and abuses arising from the COINTELPRO initiative, a secret program through which the FBI disrupted both far-left and far-right groups.[6] However, the extremely well-coordinated attacks of 9/11 exposed gaping holes in the area of human intelligence and impelled the government to reexamine and recalibrate this policy.[7]

In response, the FBI relaxed its guidelines for investigations of religious extremists, and the federal government now allows information to be shared between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Moreover, to augment their investigatory functions, the authorities increasingly rely on recently created, private monitoring groups, including JihadWatch.com and the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).[8] Their efforts are complemented by think tanks such as the Middle East Forum and publications such as the Middle East Review of International Affairs.

Operating in a decentralized fashion, private entities can be more flexible and effective than government agencies in providing time-sensitive and actionable intelligence resources. For example, MEMRI releases high-quality, up-to-date information and translations about radical organizations, frequently before such intelligence is processed by government.[9]

Emerson’s IPT has established itself as the most effective nongovernmental organization (NGO) monitoring Islamic radicalism. It is the only private entity in the United States that conducts undercover research into the activities of Islamist groups. To preserve its independence, IPT accepts no funds from the U.S. government or donors outside the United States.

Emerson’s IPT focuses primarily on U.S.-based Islamist groups, some working in legal ways to undermine American society, others with links to terrorist organizations overseas. Along the way, he has created an unparalleled undercover investigative apparatus. According to Rep. Sue Myrick (Republican of North Carolina), cofounder of the bipartisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, “The Investigative Project is the only one out there who is really doing substantial research into what is going on in the world and here in America. They are actually researching … they are verifying how these [jihadist] movements are taking place. … I don’t know of anyone else who is doing the same thing.”[10]

Emerson has returned the compliment: “Congressmen like Frank Wolf, Pete Hoekstra, and Sue Myrick have shown a backbone that is unparalleled in Congress in courageously tackling the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR [Council on American Islamic Relations], and other Islamist groups, and radical Islamic groups. So it shows there are brave Congressmen as well.”[11] Like Emerson, Myrick focuses less on outright terrorism than the infiltration of American institutions by Islamists.[12] Alliances like this lend strength to Emerson’s own efforts. The task of exposing and combating Islamist organizations and individuals takes place in a highly political context and requires high-level lobbying and juristic skills.

Exposing Islamists in America

Emerson undertook effective investigations on his own before he started the IPT. Most notable was his 1994 documentary Jihad in America, which raised awareness of the threat of radical Islam in the United States. The film focused on a Palestinian, Abdullah Azzam, who founded the Arab Fighters Service Bureau in Afghanistan to recruit and train thousands of mostly Arab jihadists. Osama bin Laden, a protégé of Azzam’s, cofounded the bureau and later transformed it into Al-Qaeda. The bureau’s North American office, the Al-Khifa Refugee Center in the Al-Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn, soon became the hub of a network that included outposts in Atlanta, Chicago, Connecticut, and New Jersey.[13] Interestingly, while in Pakistan and Afghanistan for several months in 1993, shooting the documentary, Emerson befriended Azzam’s son Hodeyfa.

After Azzam’s assassination in Pakistan in 1989,[14] the blind Egyptian sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, emerged as the spiritual leader of the international jihadist wing of the bureau. In 1990, Abdel Rahman, who had been expelled from Egypt, was allowed to emigrate from Afghanistan to the United States despite having been named on the State Department’s terrorist watch list; he settled in the New York city area. Soon, a circle of Islamists congregated at his Al-Salaam Mosque in Jersey City. In 1990, one of his followers, Egyptian-born El Sayyid Nosair, assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane, the Israeli politician and founder of the Jewish Defense League.[15] A few years later, other Abdel Rahman followers linked up with Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six persons and wounded 1,042 others.[16] Emerson’s work in uncovering and exposing this network complemented the efforts of official agencies operating under greater constraints.

The Charity Networks

Since August 1994, Emerson has testified before or informally briefed the United States Congress hundreds of times.[17] His efforts appear to have had an influence on lawmakers. The videotape of his first documentary, Jihad in America, was distributed to all 535 members of Congress and, according to Rep. Chris Smith (Republican of New Jersey), it played a significant role in persuading them to pass the USA Patriot Act in the fall of 2001.[18] In 2002, he published a book entitled American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us,[19] in which he traced the development of radical Islam in the United States. He also testified before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission) in July 2003.[20]

In later testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on November 8, 2005, he charged that Saudi Arabia had funded a vast network of charities and religious organizations that had ties to terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas.[21] This testimony prompted Treasury and National Security Council investigations into the labyrinth of radical Islamic charities operating in the United States. According to federal officials, these investigations led to an effort within the agencies to shut down some of the charities but nothing was done; the Clinton administration lacked the political will to close down the charities. Only after the 9-11 attacks did that will emerge and efforts to shut down the charitable fronts succeed.[22]

Emerson has focused primarily on the fundraising activities of mainstream Muslim groups and their links to the more radical organizations for which they serve as fronts. As he has observed, one of the most important activities carried out by Islamist groups in the United States has been the establishment of nonprofit, tax-deductible organizations to establish zones of legitimacy within which fundraising, recruitment, and even terrorist planning can occur.[23] Using a technique first developed in the Middle East, these groups often provide American Muslims with much-needed social services such as education, nutrition, and health care so as to win over and manipulate them.[24] This activity is usually justified by reference to the religious duty of paying zakat (the Islamic alms tax).[25] This practice creates substantial good will and much social capital for those Islamist groups who choose to employ it as a cover for collecting monies destined for jihadist groups.

According to one CIA study, one-fifth of all Islamic NGOs worldwide have been unwittingly infiltrated by Islamist terrorist groups.[26] As Emerson has pointed out, some of the religious and charitable organizations have mixed legitimate activities with illegitimate, thus betraying the true aims of the donations.[27] Investigators who seek to reveal this duplicity run a serious risk of being condemned as bigots who find wrongdoing in a meritorious religious activity that has close parallels to Jewish and Christian charities.

Hamas and Hezbollah Networks

Overall, the IPT, with its access to information and intelligence to which the government is not privy, has been instrumental in shutting down more than a dozen Islamic charitable terrorist and nonviolent front-groups since 2001.[28]

Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, offers one notable example of an organization involved in both terrorism and social services. According to Emerson, Hamas developed the most sophisticated infrastructure of all the Islamist groups operating in the United States.[29] During the early 1990s, the group worked out of an office in Springfield, Virginia, opened by Musa Abu Marzouk. In 1981, Abu Marzouk helped create the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), which served as the primary voice for Hamas in the United States. IAP participants were later among the founding members of CAIR.[30] IAP’s primary activity consisted of annual conferences, which hosted various Islamist luminaries who often gave incendiary speeches.[31]

In 1980, Abu Marzouk became founding president of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), which some sources indicate acted as the Hamas political command in the United States.[32] He went on to found additional groups in the United States, all of them closely associated with Hamas. For example, UASR and IAP were joined by the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), which Abu Marzouk himself designated as the primary source of donations for charitable work in the Palestinian territories.[33] In 2001, Abu Marzouk voluntarily shut down his office after its director, Ahmed Yousef, was forced to flee the United States where he had resided illegally for twenty years. Yousef now serves as a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza.[34] Abu Marzouk also returned to Gaza where he is now the deputy chairman of Hamas’s political bureau, but in 2004 he was indicted in his absence for coordinating and financing the work of Hamas.[35]

The FBI suspects that Hamas may also have established for-profit corporations in the United States. On September 5, 2001, it executed a search warrant against the InfoCom Corporation, an Internet service provider based in Richardson, Texas, suspected of ties to Hamas.[36] The authorities indicted its officials and subsequently convicted them of channeling funds to the Palestinian group.[37] Law enforcement officials commented on background that Emerson’s organization, with vast archives on the activities of Hamas front groups in the United States, had an instrumental role in prosecuting and convicting the Holy Land Foundation, a trial that resulted in sweeping convictions for all defendants in 2008.[38]

And the beat goes on: In 2007, the IPT broadcast video tapes on its website showing Esam Omeish railing against Israel and advocating jihad. As a result, Omeish was forced to resign from his appointment by Virginian governor Tim Kaine to the state’s Commission on Immigration.[39] In 2009, the IPT exposed the links between Viva Palestina USA and Hamas. Its report on the group laid bare its membership, activities, and motives and was provided to federal authorities for further investigation.[40]

Sami al-Arian and Palestinian Islamic Jihad

Emerson was the first investigator to link a former professor at the University of South Florida, Sami al-Arian, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), an organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.[41] He exposed Arian’s ties to the Islamic Jihad in his 1994 documentary Jihad in America and continued to write and testify about Arian’s links to the group throughout the rest of the decade. Arian has helped create several Islamist associations. One of these, the Islamic Concern Project (later called the Islamic Committee for Palestine), allegedly raised money for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and brought Islamist leaders to the United States.[42] In Jihad in America, Emerson called the Islamic Committee for Palestine the “primary support group in the United States for Islamic Jihad.”

Emerson revealed that Arian was running an organization that was in effect the American branch of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.[43] In February 2003, federal law enforcement agents arrested Arian for alleged fundraising and material support activities on behalf of terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.[44] In December 2005, Arian was acquitted of many serious charges against him, but the jury deadlocked on nine counts. He pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and agreed to be deported after serving the balance of a 57-month sentence.

According to Bill West, the supervisory special agent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Miami Special Investigations Section (and now a consultant to the IPT), Emerson’s “outstanding and continued original investigative journalism” of Arian and his PIJ connections “was the catalyst that resulted in the launching of the federal criminal investigation against Al-Arian and his cohorts.”[45]

CAIR, MPAC, and AMC

Emerson’s detailed investigations into CAIR have generated consequences for this Islamist group in Congress. For example, in December 2006, following an appeal by “CAIR Watch” founder Joe Kaufman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (Democrat of California) rescinded an award to CAIR official Basim Elkarra, stating that she was uncomfortable with many of CAIR’s positions.[46] Not long after, Emerson disclosed Rep. Bill Pascrell’s (Democrat of New Jersey) role in sponsoring a CAIR forum to be held in a Capitol facility. The Republican Party House Conference objected to this use by CAIR, whose members the Republican Party had labeled as “terror apologists.”[47] It was also Emerson who discerned that CAIR had effectively been founded by Hamas.[48]

He has long sought to expose CAIR’s leading officials who have previously expressed extremist views and been linked to militant activities. One of these is Ghassan Elashi, founder of the Texas branch of CAIR, who has been sentenced to more than six years in prison for numerous offences, including money-laundering for Hamas.[49] In 2007, CAIR was designated an un-indicted co-conspirator in the trial of the officials operating the Holy Land Foundation, who were accused and later convicted of laundering money for Hamas.[50] In the trial, FBI agent Lara Burns testified that CAIR serves as a front for Hamas. In January 2009, Emerson revealed that the FBI was severing its contacts with CAIR due to its ties with Hamas.[51]

Emerson has released documents and tapes showing that leaders of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) have defended Hezbollah, excused Hamas terror attacks, compared the United States to Al-Qaeda, urged Muslims not to cooperate if FBI agents approach them, and issued demonstrably anti-Semitic and anti-American statements.[52] In return, MPAC tried to demonize Emerson. At a conference held in late 2004, it displayed a poster called “The Faces that Are Always Talking about Terrorism,” which included pictures of Osama bin Laden, Daniel Pipes, Pat Robertson, Donald Rumsfeld, and Steven Emerson.[53] The implication was that Emerson, et al., were as nefarious as bin Laden.

In December 2004, MPAC again focused on Emerson in a report entitled Counterproductive Counterterrorism: How Anti-Islamic Rhetoric Is Impeding America’s Homeland Security. It pointed out that several key public officials, including former national security advisor, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, had praised the efforts of MPAC in working with government officials to combat terrorism in America.[54] Emerson countered, saying MPAC has deceived public officials into believing the group is “moderate” while at the same time defending Hezbollah and Hamas and rationalizing radical Islam.

The American Muslim Council (AMC) may have been Emerson’s most dramatic exposé so far. He took issue with an invitation that President Bill Clinton extended in 1996 to Abdurahman Alamoudi, a prominent Muslim-American leader and the executive director of the AMC. The meeting between the president and Alamoudi was to take place in the White House. Clinton administration officials, including Clinton himself, Vice President Al Gore and National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, met with Alamoudi along with twenty-three Muslim and Arab leaders.[55] According to Emerson, AMC had significant ties to Hamas and was a defender of Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzouk.[56] Because of the notoriety Alamoudi received from the exposure by Emerson, the Clintons and President Bush returned Alamoudi’s campaign contributions.[57] This is an excellent example of how someone coming from outside the compliant structures of government can make an impact in political circles.

But the matter went even further. Emerson recorded a speech in which Alamoudi voiced support for both Hezbollah and Hamas.[58] Emerson also obtained a recording of Alamoudi calling for bombings in the United States, a tape that was introduced at Alamoudi’s detention hearing and credited with the decision to keep him in jail rather than let him out on bail.[59] In October 2003, Alamoudi was then indicted on charges that he had illegally accepted $340,000 from the Libyan government for his efforts to persuade the U.S. government to lift sanctions against the Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi regime.[60] Then, in 2004, Alamoudi was arrested and convicted of conspiring with two Al-Qaeda members to assassinate King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.[61] In October, 2004, he pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. Treasury documents list him as a longtime courier for Al-Qaeda and Hamas.[62]

The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Emerson founded the Investigative Project on Terrorism in 1995 and currently serves as its executive director; this think tank and archive maintains the world’s largest collection of nongovernmental data on radical Islamic groups, including more than four million documents, thousands of hours of clandestine video and audio recordings made at radical Islamic conferences, training sessions, fundraising activities, and assorted gatherings; and tens of thousands of original terrorist manuals and periodicals.[63] The IPT has also compiled a database of thousands of known or suspected terrorists as well as dossiers on radical groups.[64]

The IPT website offers a comprehensive counter-Islamist source of information, with government documents, proprietary information, and breaking stories.[65] The IPT also employs analysts to collect and interpret data and sends associates to listen to speeches by Islamist leaders. To inform interested parties of its work, it mails out daily updates. Emerson also contributes to the Counterterrorism Blog website, which posts articles and information relating to radical Islam, terrorism, and nonviolent Islamist threats.

The IPT receives information from a variety of sources, including many not available to government agencies. The archive holds the trial exhibits from the first World Trade Center bombing case, which include numerous records on Muslim terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere. Emerson and his staff meticulously copied the documents, which were all publicly available and obtained from the court and prosecutors. After reviewing the records, Emerson concluded that these various Islamist groups were coordinating their activities in a worldwide network.[66]

The IPT, acting as a nongovernmental agency, assists, without fee, numerous government offices and agencies, in part because constitutional limitations tie the hands of federal and state security services. Due to a strong civil liberties tradition rooted in the First Amendment, the U.S. government lacks the authority to disband extremist groups or proscribe extremist speech. While the IPT does not possess any governmental powers or authority, it has the ability, like the media, to shine a light on the activities of Islamist groups, gatherings, and officials. Emerson often quotes Justice Louis Brandeis’s dictum that “sunshine is the law’s best disinfectant.”

The constraints imposed on government agencies investigating terrorist threats created space for Emerson’s Investigative Project. Since the mid-1970s, federal authorities have been hampered in their efforts to monitor political extremism, largely due to the legacy of the secret FBI project designated COINTELPRO.[67] Negative publicity surrounding that program led the Justice Department to change FBI law enforcement and investigative methods to de-politicize the FBI. The Levi guidelines, adopted in April 1976, require evidence of a criminal predicate or a reasonable suspicion before commencing investigation of a dissident group.[68] These changes had dramatic consequences, not least that the number of domestic intelligence cases dropped from 1,454 in 1975 to only 95 in 1977.[69] Nothing in the guidelines, however, precludes the FBI from opening an investigation based on information received from a private group. NGOs such as the IPT and individuals such as Shannen Rossmiller[70] have done much to fill the void. For its part, the IPT monitors not only radical Islamic groups in America advocating violent jihad but also those employing nonviolent or “stealth” jihad.

Conclusion

Emerson believes that the Islamist movement in the West continues to strengthen, in large part due to what he refers to as the “cultural jihad,” which provides a congenial environment in which Islamists can flourish. He cites survey data indicating that many Muslim communities in the West sympathize with aspects of the Islamist worldview. These cultural jihadists in turn give moral support to the terrorists.[71] In Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah, the French scholar Olivier Roy argues that Muslims in the West often experience a trauma of “deterritorialization” because they feel estranged from their native lands. To overcome anomie and alienation, young Muslims find solace in a new, purified Islam and attach themselves to a “virtual ummah [Islamic nation]” built by them on the Internet.[72] This pool of mostly young, alienated, Muslim men provides a reservoir from which Islamists can recruit in the West.

In Emerson’s opinion, the November 2, 2004 murder of Theo van Gogh by Mohammed Bouyeri[73] was a watershed event that inspired Europeans to reevaluate the viability of the multicultural model, seeing that it results not in peaceful coexistence but rather in separatism and cultural jihadism, threatening the social fabric of Western Europe. He warns that moderates have little influence in Muslim communities in the West.[74] Although the Muslim underclass in the United States is smaller than in Europe, Emerson finds substantial alienation in the Muslim-American community. He sees groups such as CAIR, MPAC, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim American Society as agents that exacerbate this tendency. What is more, he notes, Islamist schools in the United States are often funded by Wahhabi sources promoting an extremist variant of Islam.[75]

Emerson has not gone unnoticed by Al-Qaeda. In September 2006, a leading public representative of the organization—American-born Adam Gadahn, who has adopted the Muslim name of Azzam al-Amriki—mentioned Emerson and several other Americans in a public videotape.[76] The video begins with an introduction by bin Laden’s lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who refers to Gadahn as a “brother” and “a perceptive person who wants to lead his people out of darkness into the light.”[77] Then Gadahn invites Emerson and the others to Islam:

If the Zionist crusader missionaries of hate and counter-Islam consultants like Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Michael Scheuer, Steven Emerson, and yes, even the crusader-in-chief, George W. Bush were to abandon their unbelief and repent and enter into the light of Islam and turn their swords against the enemies of God, it would be accepted of them and they would be our brothers of Islam.[78]

Emerson and his colleagues remain unimpressed and continue their work.

George Michael is associate professor of political science and administration of justice at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise. He is the author most recently of Willis Carto and the American Far Right (University Press of Florida, 2008), and Theology of Hate: A History of the World Church of the Creator (University Press of Florida, 2009).

[1] Steven Emerson, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us (New York: The Free Press, 2002), p. 6.
[2] Ibid., pp. 5-25.
[3] New York: Putnam Adult, 1988.
[4] With Brian Duffy, New York: Penguin Group, 1990.
[5] See also Steven Emerson, “Stymied Warriors,” The New York Times Magazine, Nov. 13, 1988; Beau Grosscup, The Newest Explosions of Terrorism: Latest Sites of Terrorism in the 1990s and Beyond (Far Hills, N.J.: New Horizon Press, 1998), p. 405.
[6] James Kirkpatrick Davis, Spying on America: The FBI’s Domestic Counterintelligence Program (Westport: Praeger, 1992), pp. 25-159.
[7] Los Angeles Times, Dec. 1, 2001.
[8] See “Why Jihad Watch?” JihadWatch, accessed Oct. 1, 2009; “About Us,” Middle East Media Research Institute, accessed Oct. 1, 2009; “About the Project,” Terrorism Awareness Project, accessed Oct. 1, 2009.
[9] John Robb, Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007), pp. 89-91.
[10]About the Investigative Project,” The Investigative Project on Terrorism, accessed Oct. 1, 2009.
[11] Jamie Glazov, “The-Islamist Lobby in the House: An Interview with Steven Emerson,” FrontPageMagazine.com, Aug. 4, 2009.
[12] Sue Myrick, “The War at Home: When Will We Open Our Eyes?” editorial, Feb, 5, 2008, accessed Nov. 29, 2009.
[13] Peter L. Bergen, Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), p. 133.
[14]Who Killed Abdullah Azzam?” Time, Nov. 24, 1989.
[15] United States of America, Appellee, v. Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, New York, Aug. 16, 1999.
[16] Simon Reeve, The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden and the Future of Terrorism (Boston: Northeaster Press, 1999), p. 15.
[17]Testimony,” The Investigative Project, accessed Oct. 1, 2009.
[18] John Mintz, “The Man Who Gives Terrorism a Name,” The Washington Post, Nov. 14, 2001.
[19] New York: Free Press, 2003.
[20] The 9/11 Commission Report (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), p. 441.
[21] Steven Emerson, “Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe in the War on Terror,” testimony before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2005.
[22] E-mail correspondence with Steven Emerson, Nov. 19, 2009.
[23] Emerson, American Jihad, p. 37; Rohan Gunaratna, Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), p. 5.
[24] Gunaratna, Inside Al Qaeda, p. 6.
[25] See Raymond Ibrahim, “The Dark Side of Zakat: Muslim ‘Charity’ in Context,” Pajamas Media, Aug. 15, 2009.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Steven Emerson, “How to Really Fight Terrorism,” The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 24, 1998.
[28] WTHR- NBC (Indianapolis), Nov. 10, 2003.
[29] Emerson, American Jihad, p. 80.
[30] Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha, “CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment,” Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2006, pp. 3-20.
[31] Emerson, American Jihad, pp. 93-8; Harvey Kushner with Bart Davis, Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States (New York: Sentinel, 2004), pp. 22-4.
[32] Emerson, American Jihad, pp. 84-5; Kushner, Holy War on the Home Front, pp. 109-12.
[33]HLF Officials Convicted on All Counts,” IPT News, The Investigative Project, Nov. 24, 2008.
[34] FrontPageMagazine.com, Feb. 9, 2008; The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 2, 2009.
[35] United States of America v. Mohammed Abu Marzook, et. al., United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, no. 03 CR 978.
[36] Emerson, American Jihad, pp. 103-4; The Dallas Morning News, July 15, 2007.
[37] Associated Press, Apr. 13, 2005.
[38] The New York Times, Nov. 24, 2008.
[39] Associated Press, Sept. 27, 2007.
[40]Viva Palestina: An IPT Investigative Report,” Investigative Project on Terrorism, accessed Nov. 17, 2009.
[41]Foreign Terrorist Organizations,” U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., Apr. 8, 2008.
[42] Emerson, American Jihad, pp. 111-6; Kushner, Holy War on the Home Front, p. 52.
[43]Target Terrorism,” CBS 48 Hours, Jan. 30, 2002.
[44]ADL Commends Law Enforcement for Arrests of Suspected Terrorist Supporters,” Anti-Defamation League, Feb. 20, 2003.
[45] E-mail correspondence with Bill West, chief, Special Investigations Section, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Miami (Fla.) District Office, Nov. 19, 2009.
[46] Newsweek, Dec. 29, 2006.
[47] Steven Emerson, “One Muslim Advocacy Group’s Not-So-Secret Terrorist Ties,” The New Republic Online, Mar. 28, 2007.
[48] Emerson, American Jihad, pp. 197-203.
[49] Steven Emerson, “Kicking a CAIR Extremist off the Human Relations Commission,” FrontPageMagazine.com, Nov. 6, 2006.
[50] United States of America v. Holy Land Foundation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Appendix A, CR no. 3:04-CR-240-G.
[51] IPT News, Jan. 29, 2009; FoxNews.com, Jan. 20, 2009.
[52] Steven Emerson, “Threatened by the Jihad,” FrontPageMagazine.com, Mar. 14, 2007; Daniel Pipes, “MPAC, CAIR, and Praising Osama bin Laden,” FrontPageMagazine.com, June 1, 2007.
[53] Daniel Pipes, “MPAC on Steven Emerson and Me,” Daniel Pipes Blog, July 12, 2004.
[54] Counterproductive Counterterrorism: How Anti-Islamic Rhetoric Is Impeding America’s Homeland Security (Washington, D.C.: Muslim Public Affairs Council, 2004), p. 4.
[55]Profile: American Muslim Council (AMC),” Center for Grassroots Oversight, accessed July 7, 2009; Steven Emerson, “Friends of Hamas in the White House,” The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 13, 1996.
[56] Emerson, “Friends of Hamas in the White House.”
[57] The New York Times, Oct. 26, 2000.
[58]Target Terrorism,” CBS 48 Hours, Jan. 30, 2002.
[59]Declaration in Support of Detention,” United States of America v. Abdurahman Muhammad Alamoudi, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, no. 03-1009M, Sept. 30, 2003.
[60] David Frum and Richard Perle, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror (New York: Random House, 2003), p. 83.
[61] The Washington Post, Oct. 16, 2004.
[62] United States of America v. Abdurahman Muhammad Alamoudi.
[63] Steven Emerson, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2006), p. 15.
[64] Steven Emerson, “DOJ Oversight: Preserving Our Freedoms while Defending against Terrorism,” testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Dec. 4, 2001; idem, American Jihad, p. 14.
[65] The Investigative Project on Terrorism, accessed July 7, 2009.
[66] Emerson, American Jihad, pp. 20-1.
[67] Davis, Spying on America, pp. 25-159.
[68] “The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Compliance with the Attorney General’s Investigative Guidelines,” (Redacted), Special Report, Office of the Inspector General, Washington, D.C., Sept. 2005.
[69] Davis, Spying on America, p. 176.
[70] See Shannen Rossmiller, “My Cyber Counter-jihad,” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2007, pp. 43-8.
[71] Steven Emerson, “Jihadism: Where Is It At in 2006?Sydney Papers, The Sydney (Aus.) Institute, Autumn 2006, pp. 63-71.
[72] Olivier Roy, Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), pp. 272-5.
[73] BBC News, Nov. 2, 2004; USA Today, Nov. 2, 2004; The New York Times, Nov. 10, 2004.
[74]Radical Islamism in Europe,” interview with Irshad Manji, Steven Emerson, and Gilles Kepel, Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C., Dec. 2004.
[75]A Special Interview with Steve Emerson,” The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security International, June 2006; Roy, Globalized Islam, pp. 234-43; on U.K. schools and radicalism, see “Music, Chess, and Other Sins,” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2009, pp. 78-82.
[76] Associated Press, May 27, 2004; Fox News, Oct. 29, 2004; Annette Stark, “Peace, Love, Death Metal,” Los Angeles City Beat, Sept. 9, 2004.
[77] Raffi Khatchadourian, “Azzam the American,” The New Yorker, Jan. 22, 2007.
[78] Beila Rabinowitz, “What Al Qaeda’s Call for Pipes, Spencer, Emerson, and Scheuer to Convert to Islam Means,” PipeLineNews.org, Sept. 19, 2006.

Related Topics: Counter-terrorismGeorge MichaelWinter 2010 MEQ receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list To receive the full, printed version of the Middle East Quarterly, please see details about an affordable subscription. This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

h1

Israelis Baffled by News of Defenseless US Soldiers

January 13, 2010

Israelis Baffled by News of Defenseless US Soldiers


Many Israelis want to know: why didn’t the soldiers attacked by a U.S. Army major-turned-terrorist return fire?

When a Muslim goes, well, Muslim in Israel he is typically shot to death by someone, like a reserve soldier, within seconds of screaming “Allah Akbar.”

In contrast with the Israeli experience, it took 10 minutes before a civilian police officer at  Fort Hood was able to shoot and stop Muslim fanatic Nidal Malik Hasan.

How could that happen?  How could so many people trained in the strategies and tactics of modern warfare be so defenseless?

The answer – and this may astonish many Americans – is that the victims were unarmed. U.S. soldiers are not allowed to carry guns for personal protection, even on a 340-acre base quartering more than 50,000 troops.

So it goes in brain-dead, liberal America .

Fort Hood is a “gun free” zone, thanks to regulations adopted in one of the very first acts signed into law by anti-gun President Bill Clinton in March, 1993. Click here for the file.

Contrary to President Obama’s crocodile tears, his administration is bent on further disarming the U.S. military, and all Americans. Obama and his people will not rest until every American is a sitting duck…

postscript: Israeli teachers, from kindergarten on up, are also armed; so, a Virginia Tech-type slaughter is highly unlikely at an Israeli university.

Israelis, who have had to combat terrorism all their lives, are not afraid of guns.  They are an armed people, ready, willing, and able to defend themselves and their country.

Unlike Liberally indoctrinated Americans, paralyzed by fear and political correctness, Israelis understand that people, not guns, kill people.

h1

Video: Ft. Lauderdale Pro-Hamas Demonstration – One Year Ago

January 7, 2010

This story is worth republishing this year.  This demonstration occurred Dec. 2008 downtown Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.