Archive for the ‘Jihad’ 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

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

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

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

Rifqa Bary and CAIR

December 14, 2009

New pics reveal Hamas-linked CAIR’s backstage media coordination in Rifqa Bary case

CAIR - Bary4.jpg

The picture above shows the parents of Rifqa Bary with Babak Darvish, an official of Hamas-linked CAIR. Here is the whole story: “Pics reveal CAIR backstage coordination of media in Rifqa Bary case and how the media kept silent,” from the Jawa Report, December 14 (thanks to Isabella):

Since early August we have been following the ongoing saga concerning Rifqa Bary, the Ohio Muslim-turned-Christian convert teenager who fled her home to Florida in fear of her life after her family discovered her conversion. Last Friday we reported a motion filed by the Bary’s CAIR attorney with the Ohio court considering Rifqa’s case demanding a ban and seizure of all Christmas cards sent to her from outside parties. We also broke the story of how CAIR officials were allowed to be present as “neutral observers” when the Bary family was interviewed by Florida investigators.

Early on in this case we reported that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) had convened a strategy session in Rifqa’s hometown of Ohio where they formulated their media strategy in response to the negative press the parents were receiving:

But a source who was inside a secret strategy meeting conducted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) earlier this week has conveyed the strategy that the media’s favorite Islamist group has devised to respond to the ongoing public relations crisis. According to my source who attended the strategy session, CAIR officials handed out copies of this Orlando Sentinel article and want supporters to push the meme that Christians have brainwashed and abducted this gullible teenage girl. They have also instructed supporters to circulate rumors that Rifqa had been carousing with infidel boys and engaged in acts of immorality. This CAIR strategy takes the focus off the near-universal Islamic legal precepts and Quranic injunctions that demand death for apostates and impugns the character of the innocent girl at the center of this controversy who appears to be in genuine fear for her life if she is returned to her parents.

That media narrative of Rifqa being brainwashed and abducted by a Christian cult was one that was carried by many media outlets, most notably Meredith “Hijab” Heagney of the Columbus Dispatch, Michael Kruse of the St. Petersburg Times, among others. In all their reporting, however, they carefully left the connections of the terror-tied CAIR out of their stories.

But from my source inside CAIR comes new information indicating media complicity with respect to concealing CAIR’s backstage management of the case on behalf of Rifqa’s allegedly abusive parents. Most of the stories by these media hacks featured pictures of the Bary family, such as this photo accompanying an article by the St. Pete Times’ Michael Kruse:

a4s_revolutionary082_81633c.jpgWhat is important about this photograph is not so much what you see as what you don’t see. As the late Paul Harvey said, and now for the rest of the story…

What CAIR’s media allies neglected to mention was that these interviews with the lapdog media were being conducted in the office of CAIR-Columbus executive director Babak Darvish as seen in the following photographs taken in various media interviews.

Go here to see the pictures. In a sane world, this revelation would destroy the credibility of the Kruse/Heagney media coverage of the story for good, as well as the credibility of the parents’ case against Rifqa and attempts to get her back home despite her fears for her life. Would it matter to the case that media interviews with the parents were being conducted in the offices of an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case? Would it matter to the case that media interviews with the parents were being held in the offices of an organization that was known to have held meetings about false talking points it was going to circulate in order to discredit this girl and her defenders?

It should matter. But it doesn’t. For the elites to whom it should matter are just as corrupt and compromised as Kruse, Heagney and co.

source: Jihadwatch.com

h1

IPT: The Threat of Homegrown Terrorism

December 1, 2009

The Threat of Homegrown Terrorism

by Interview with Steven Emerson
C-SPAN
November 29, 2009

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1540/the-threat-of-homegrown-terrorism

Multimedia for this item

Washington Journal continues.

ROBB HARLESTON [HOST]: Steve Emerson is the Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and author of Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S. We’re going to talk about that a little bit more. We’ve got you in to talk about the threat of homegrown terrorism, so for the sake of this particular conversation, define homegrown terrorism for us.

STEVEN EMERSON: Well, interestingly enough, homegrown terrorism used to define right wing, neo-Nazi, KKK-type terrorism – indigenous terrorism. Now it is used as a euphemism for jihadist-type terrorism that grows up in the United States indigenously without external factors such as being directed by Al Qaeda or such as being imported from Al Qaeda, but rather American citizens who carry out attacks of terrorism here in the United States.

HARLESTON: And an example of that would be the case of the Somalis being written about in a lot of places as – and we’ve got the article here from the Wall Street Journal, the headline “Somali Case Highlights Specter of Radicalization” – tell us what they’re writing about.

EMERSON: They’re writing about a whole cluster of Somali-American kids whose parents had immigrated to the United States as refugees and who – the kids were born here. But unfortunately, because of radicalization, either through the mosque or through the internet or through videos or through CDs, they became radicalized to the point of joining the Al-Shabaab movement, which was an Al Qaeda subset in Somalia. And they were recruited to either carry out attacks in Somalia – one actually carried out a suicide bombing – or to carry out attacks in the United States. And they were all American-born.

HARLESTON: And how much of this threat – how big is this threat becoming? How is this growing here in the United States?

EMERSON: Well the Somali-American threat is growing. I can tell you there are at least six other American cities where they have young Somali-Americans who they believe belong to Al-Shabaab, and are deemed to be a national security threat. There is active recruitment in Kansas City, in Columbus, Ohio, in San Diego in California, and several other cities for Al-Shabaab. And that’s not the only group involved in terms of homegrown terrorism, but certainly one of the major groups.

HARLESTON: We’re talking with Steven Emerson about the threat of homegrown terrorism. If you want to get involved in the conversation, the number is (202) 737-0002 for Democrats. Republicans: (202) 737-0001. Independents: (202) 628-0205. So by this definition, would you categorize what happened at Fort Hood with Major Nidal Hasan as a case of homegrown terrorism?

EMERSON: Absolutely. I believe that was a case of homegrown jihadist terrorism. It wasn’t externally directed. It may have been influenced by a Yemeni cleric named Anwar al-Awlaki, who used to live in the United States, and with whom Major Hasan had had contact with. But he carried it out all by himself – he had procured the firearms, he let superiors know that infidels should have their throats slit, he became a full fledged jihadist here in the United States from seemingly not having a religious background.

HARLESTON: In this morning’s New York Post, their editorial “Fumbling Bureau of Incompetence,” they write, regarding the shooting at Fort Hood: “The gunman’s extremism was so obvious that the FBI had identified e-mails between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaqi, a radical Muslim cleric with apparent ties to Osama bin Laden – yet decided against a full investigation. While Army intelligence also didn’t follow up, the FBI’s the one with the track record of missteps going back years.” How much responsibility do you feel falls on the FBI and American intelligence for the growth of this homegrown terrorism – particularly the case of the Somalis or the case of the shooting at Fort Hood?

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Muslim Mafia Update: FBI Served CAIR Warrant

November 25, 2009

FBI intercepts docs destined for CAIR


Agents enter law office with warrant for evidence on D.C. Muslim group


Posted: November 24, 2009 11:25 pm Eastern WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – While attorneys representing the co-author of “Muslim Mafia” were preparing late today to honor a federal court order to return documents obtained from the Council on American-Islamic Relations in an independent undercover operation, FBI agents served a warrant on a Washington, D.C., law office for the same documents.

The FBI agents entered the capital law offices of Cozen O’Connor tonight and issued a warrant for thousands of pages of documents as well as audio and video recordings gathered by P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris in a daring and lengthy undercover penetration of CAIR in which the younger Gaubatz served as an unpaid intern for the group that was labeled an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator in last year’s Holy Land Foundation trial.

CAIR claimed in a lawsuit that Gaubatz removed its papers and made recordings of employees “without any consent or authorization and in violation of his contractual fiduciary and other legal obligations.” A federal judge in Washington issued a restraining order Nov. 3 barring the Gaubatzes from further use or publication of the material – 12,000 pages of documents along with audio and video recordings – and demanding that they return it to the Muslim group’s lawyers.

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges

November 25, 2009

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Tuesday , November 24, 2009

By Rowan Scarborough

FC1

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

“I gave the detainee a glance over and then left,” the SEAL wrote. “I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health.”

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that “Objective Amber” planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and “they had been tracking this guy for some time.”

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

h1

A Study in Muslim Doctrine: Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood

November 24, 2009

Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood: A Study in Muslim Doctrine

by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
November 18, 2009

http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine

One of the difficulties in discussing Islam’s more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims — such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature?

Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and “observant Muslim who prayed daily,” who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons — he was “picked on,” he was “mentally unbalanced” — the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.

Note: Any number of ulema (Muslim scholars) have expounded the following doctrines. However, since jihadi icon and theoretician Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two, has also addressed many of these doctrines in his treatises, including by quoting several authoritative ulema, I will primarily rely on excerpts from The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), for those readers who wish to source, and read in context, the following quotes in one volume.

Wala’ wa Bara’

Perhaps best translated as “loyalty and enmity,” this doctrine requires Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to Islam and one another, while disavowing, even hating (e.g., Koran 60:4), all things un-Islamic — including persons (a.k.a. “infidels”). This theme has ample support in the Koran, hadith, and rulings of the ulema, that is, usul al-fiqh (roots of Muslim jurisprudence). In fact, Zawahiri has written a fifty-page treatise entitled “Loyalty and Enmity” (AQR, p. 63-115).

One of the many Koranic verses on which he relies warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them” (Koran 5:51), i.e., he becomes an infidel. The plain meaning of this verse alone — other verses, such as 3:28, 4:144, and 6:40 follow this theme — and its implications for today can hardly be clearer. According to one of the most authoritative Muslim exegetes, al-Tabari (838-923), Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community” (AQR, p. 71).

Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), takes the concept of loyalty one step further when he tells Muslims that they are “obligated to befriend a believer — even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you” (AQR, p. 84).

In ways, Hasan’s life was a testimony to loyalty and enmity. According to his colleague, Dr. Finnell, Hasan “was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second.” If his being “vocal about the war” is not enough to demonstrate unwavering loyalty to Islam, his insistence that he is first and foremost a Muslim is. Other evidence indicates that the primary factor that threw him “over the edge” was that he was being deployed to a Muslim country (Afghanistan) — his “worst nightmare.”

According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” Hasan also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims,” again, showing where his loyalty lies. Tabari’s exegesis comes to mind: the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community,” i.e., he too becomes an infidel (AQR, p. 71).

Another source who spoke with Hasan notes that “in the Koran, you’re not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”

At any rate, surely none of this should come as a surprise. In April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. According to the AP, “he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

Taqiyya

This doctrine, which revolves around deceiving the infidel, is pivotal to upholding loyalty and enmity wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live among non-Muslim majorities. In fact, the Koran’s primary justification for deception is in the context of loyalty: “Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (Koran 3:28). In other words, when necessary, Muslims are permitted to feign friendship and loyalty to non-Muslims, or, in the words of Abu Darda, a pious companion of Muhammad, “We grin to the faces of some peoples, while our hearts curse them” (AQR, p. 73). Taqiyya’s importance for upholding loyalty and enmity is evidenced by the fact that, just three pages into his treatise, Zawahiri has an entire section called “The Difference Between Befriending and Dissembling.” There he shows that, while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden, insincere friendship — whenever beneficial to Muslims — is not.

Again, Zawahiri quotes that standard reference, Tabari, who explains Koran 3:28 as follows: “Only when you are in their [non-Muslims’] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim” (AQR, p. 74).

And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims — whom, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty — it is forbidden. As Zawahiri concludes, the Muslim may pretend, so long as he does “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (AQR, p. 75).

Again, we are reminded that the “moment of truth” for Hasan, who seems to have led something of a double life — American major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night — is the fact that he was being deployed to Afghanistan, i.e., he would have been aiding non-Muslim Americans against fellow Muslims (remember, he was “a Muslim first and an American second”). He tried to prevent this, getting a lawyer, to no avail. Thus, since he had taken deceit to its doctrinal limit and was now being placed in a position where he would have to actually demonstrate his loyalty to Americans against Muslims, it appears he decided to take it to the next level (see doctrine below).

Incidentally, we also find that “he [Hasan] was going to be kind of the caretaker for [American] Muslim soldiers. Sometimes Muslim soldiers have a rift between what they’re doing and their faith,” according to Major Khalid Shabazz, an Army Muslim chaplain. “That person who is a leader needs to quell some of those fears and help them through that process.”

This all sounds well and good, but what, precisely, does it mean? If, as we have seen, Islam clearly forbids Muslims from aiding infidels against fellow Muslims, and if being in the U.S. Army requires American Muslims to fight non-American Muslims now and again, how was Hasan — or any other observant Muslim — going to “quell some of those fears and help through that process”? How, if not by merely instructing them in the centuries-old arts of taqiyya?

Jihad

Amongst learned infidels, jihad is the most recognized and notorious of all Muslim doctrines. Literally meaning to “struggle” or “strive,” jihad can take on any form, though its most native and praiseworthy expression revolves around fighting, and killing, the infidel enemy — even if it costs the Muslim fighter (the mujahid) his life: “Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the path of Allah; whoever fights in the path of Allah — whether he dies or triumphs — we shall richly reward him” (Koran 4:74). And “Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and possessions, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight in the path of Allah, killing and being killed” (Koran 9:111).

The hadith also has its fair share of anecdotes advocating the “one-man jihad.” Zawahiri’s treatise, “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents,” (AQR p. 137-171), spends much time justifying the desperate solo jihad — otherwise known as the “martyrdom operation” — including by offering the following hadith: “A Muslim asked Muhammad, O Messenger of Allah! If I plunge myself into the ranks of the idolaters and fight till I am killed — what then, to heaven? He [Muhammad] said yes. So the man plunged himself into the ranks of the idolaters, fighting till he was slain” (AQR, p. 153).

The learned ulema agree. According to al-Qurtubi (d. 1273), “There is no wrong for a man to singlehandedly attack a mighty army — if he seeks martyrdom — provided he has the fortitude.” Others indicate that one of the reasons making the one-man jihad permissible is that it serves to “terrify the foe” (AQR, p. 155).

And there it is: When all else failed, when Hasan’s forthcoming deployment into Muslim land forced him to expose where his true loyalty (wala’) lies, pretense (taqiyya) gave way to full-blown struggle (jihad). Hasan, who sacrificed many years to become a psychiatrist and a U.S. Army major, in the clear words of the Koran “exchange[d] the life of this world for the Hereafter.” Evidence also indicates that he believed “martyrdom operations” were not only valid but laudable acts of courage, writing “YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” (capitals in original). Zawahiri puts it more articulately: “The deciding factor is … the intention.” Is the mujahid killing himself “to service Islam [laudable martyrdom], or is it out of depression and despair [forbidden suicide]?” (AQR, p. 157).

(Unfortunately and, no doubt, much to Hasan’s chagrin, infidel medics ensured his failure to achieve martyrdom.)

The greatest proof that, at least in his own mind, Hasan was waging a jihad is the fact that he utilized that immemorial jihadi war cry — Allahu Akbar! — which has served to terrify the infidel denizens of the world for centuries. Here’s an example from Muslim history (circa the early 8th century): “The [non-Muslim] inhabitants of eastern Anatolia were filled with terror the likes of which they had never experienced before. All they saw were Muslims in their midst screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Allah planted terror in their hearts. … The [non-Muslim] men were crucified over the course of 24 km” (from Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk).

Indeed, while the takbir (the formal term for “Allahu Akbar”) can be used in various contexts, it is by far primarily used in a jihadi context, past and present. Nearly 1,400 years ago, Muhammad and the early Muslims cried “Allahu Akbar” immediately before attacking their infidel neighbors; eight years before the Fort Hood massacre, Mohamed Atta cried “Allahu Akbar” immediately before crashing a hijacked plane into one of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Even Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith compiler, has an entire chapter titled “The Recitation of Takbir [i.e., Allahu Akbar] in War.”

Yet confusion abides. An AP report writes: “As if going off to war, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan cleaned out his apartment, gave leftover frozen broccoli to one neighbor, and called another to thank him for his friendship — common courtesies and routines of the departing soldier. Instead, authorities say, he went on the killing spree that left thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas, dead.” Contrary to the tone of this excerpt, Hasan’s actions were far from contradictory. After all, he was “going off to war.”

Wala’ wa bara, taqiyya, and jihad all help explain Hasan’s actions. Even so, other lesser-known aspects of Islam lend their support to the view that he was acting from an Islamist framework.

Sakina

Several people who encountered Hasan before, and even during, the time he went a-jihading note that he evinced an almost unnatural amount of calmness — certainly for one getting ready to go on a killing spree. No doubt, many will point to this as a sign that he was suffering from some sort of schizophrenic episode.

Yet the fact remains: according to jihadi lore, a feeling of tranquility and calmness is supposed to descend on the mujahid, especially during the most stressful moments of combat (see Koran 9:26 for confirmation). This is known as sakina (calmness, tranquility). Osama bin Laden himself often describes his experience of sakina during the Afghan-Soviet war: “Once I was only thirty meters away from the Russians and they were trying to capture me. I was under bombardment, but I was so peaceful in my heart that I fell asleep. Before a battle, Allah sends us sequina [sakina] — tranquility.” Of course, whether Hasan experienced “true” sakina, or whether he was merely affecting to himself, is irrelevant. Rather, the point here is that, once again, that which appears inexplicable or indicative of “mental instability” can be explained through an Islamic paradigm.

Da’wa

According to Sharia law, Muslims are not permitted to voluntarily reside in non-Muslim nations, such as America, except under certain circumstances. One of these is if the Muslim is actively engaged in da’wa, that is, proselytizing; another is if he fights in the path of Allah, jihad. Both serve the same purpose: empowering Islam by numbers and territory, respectively. Merely living in infidel territory out of choice, however, because it offers a “better life,” is forbidden. (To get an idea of how serious a matter it is for Muslims to reside in non-Muslims nations, see some online fatwas.)

Accordingly, we find that the observant Hasan, prior to his jihadi spree, was engaged in da’wa for years. In fact, he aggressively pursued it to the point that he was reprimanded by the authorities. Nor did he cease trying to proselytize — that is, trying to validate his living with infidels — until the day before he went on his rampage, when he gave his neighbor a copy of the Koran. Of course, many Westerners will project their notions of proselytism onto Hasan and see only a God-fearing man “altruistically” concerned for the souls of others. Unfortunately, even the business card he included with his Koran gifts is indicative of violence, as it stealthily introduces him as a “soldier of Allah.” Moreover, the “altruistic” interpretation fails to take into account the sort of legalism observant Muslims such as Hasan often adhere to: if he literally believed he was “exchanging this life for the Hereafter,” he most likely also believed that he had to justify his voluntary dwelling with infidels, hence the da’wa.

* * *

Soon following the Fort Hood massacre, FBI agent Brad Garrett explained Hasan’s behavior as follows: “It’s one of those things that he obviously went to kill a lot of people [jihad] and commit suicide [martyrdom]. Maybe in his own mind that he’s saving future lives [Muslim loyalty].” Read with the bracketed concepts I supplied, Hasan’s actions become logical and consistent — again, from an doctrinal point of view, that is, from a point of view the West, especially its leaders, are loath to explore and alacritous to ignore.

For example, “U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat who is one of two Muslims serving in Congress, cautioned against focusing on the alleged shooter’s religion [and thus its doctrines] and instead said the discussion should be about mental health issues.”

Read:

U.S. Congressional Representative Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat – (one of the two Muslims in the U.S. Congress) – may have explained a lot more then he intended to when he said the discussion about Nidal Milak Hasan “should be about mental health issues” – Most of us already know that this is the only option.

Killing spree of 14 deaths and 30 wounded.

So, real Muslims are either crazy or they are just acting out their religious obligations.

Flagrant obfuscations aside, the facts remain: loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels (wala’ wa bara’), a secretive double life (taqiyya), violence in the name of Allah (jihad) — all these can easily explain Hasan’s violent rampage in Fort Hood.

The ultimate lesson? So long as Muslim doctrines are downplayed in the West, so long will warning signs, even concrete intelligence, be ignored, so long will such seemingly inexplicable incidents occur, so long will the media continue grasping for straws and Americans be “completely blindsided,” so long will “Muslim grievance” be the default answer, so long will appeasement and concessions (domestically and internationally) be the only solution, so long will jihadis and Islamists grow emboldened and contemptuous, expecting more. Ad infinitum.

Conversely, if the Fort Hood massacre causes Americans to begin taking Islam’s doctrines more seriously, the thirteen slain, while dying tragically, will not have died in vain.

Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nidal-hasan-and-fort-hood-a-study-in-muslim-doctrine-part-1/ and http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nidal-hasan-and-fort-hood-a-study-in-muslim-doctrine-part-2/

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda

Related Topics: Muslims in the United States, Radical Islam, TerrorismRaymond Ibrahim receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list 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

Detecting Military Radicalism in the Wake of Fort Hood

November 23, 2009

Detecting Military Radicalism in the Wake of Fort Hood

IPT News
November 19, 2009

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1528/detecting-military-radicalism-in-the-wake-of-fort

The first congressional hearing in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre took place Thursday morning, with the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing from security experts, including a retired general and a former top White House advisor.

Lieberman wanted to hear from FBI officials about missed signals that Nidal Malik Hasan exhibited radical viewpoints and created concern among his colleagues. But the administration didn’t allow any current government witnesses, in deference to the ongoing criminal investigation.

According to the Washington Post, Lieberman said conversations with Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates left him optimistic that the committee would gain access to some of the information it is seeking soon.

Thursday, the committee heard testimony on how to better identify potential radicals in the armed forces and how to empower people to report their concerns up the chain of command, even when the concerns involved an officer like Hasan. Among the witnesses were retired Gen. John Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Frances Fragos Townsend, President George W. Bush’s homeland security adviser, and terrorism expert Brian Michael Jenkins of the RAND Corp.

The New York Times reported that the Pentagon was initiating a review of the Hasan case that would have a similar focus. The Investigative Project on Terrorism covered the hearing and prepared a video summary below.

Transcript

SEN. LIEBERMAN: (Sounds gavel.) The hearing will come to order. This morning, our committee begins an investigation as serious and consequential as any it has ever undertaken. An American soldier, Nidal Hasan, has been charged with killing 12 of his fellow soldiers and one civilian on an American military base in Texas in what I believe, based on available evidence, was a terrorist attack.

The purpose of this committee’s investigation is to determine whether that attack could have been prevented, whether the federal agencies and employees involved missed signals or failed to connect dots in a way that enabled Nidal Hasan to carry out his deadly attack.

If we find such errors or negligence, we will make recommendations to guarantee as best we can that they never occur again. That’s our purpose here.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Our staffs will be meeting with representatives of the Department of Justice and Defense very soon to try to work out ground rules for both investigations without interfering with each other.

But I can say that I’m encouraged and appreciative that Senator Collins and I and our staff — our top staff — have received one classified briefing on the Hasan case and will soon receive another and have been given access to some very relevant classified documents relating to this matter. So we’re off to a good cooperative start.

—-

GEN. KEANE: I suspect strongly that after we conduct these investigations, we will find that our policies will need revision again to account for the specific behavior and attitudes as expressed by radical Islamists or Jihadist extremists. It should not be an active of moral courage for a soldier to identify a fellow soldier who is displaying extremist behavior. It should be an obligation. And as such, the commanders needs specific guidelines as to what Jihadist extremists behavior is and re-emphasize how to use the many tools and options they have at their disposal to curb the behavior, to rehabilitate soldiers if possible, or to take legal or separation action.

Because Jihadist extremists are potentially linked to terrorist organizations that directly threaten the security of the United States, it is essential that our government agencies are sharing information about such individuals.

GEN. KEANE: Radical Islam and Jihadist extremism is the most transformational issue I have dealt with in my military service and continues to be so today. In my judgment, it is the most significant threat to the security of the American people that I have faced in my lifetime. We are a society that espouses tolerance and values diversity and our military reflects those values. But at the same time, we must know what a threat looks like and we must know what to do about it.

MS. TOWNSEND: To the extent that there would have been concern of infringing on Major Hasan’s either right to free speech or his freedom to practice his religion, there were other factors to which you could point beyond that, having nothing to do with his religion or his speech, that could have caused concern.

The repeated — while it’s not public, the content of those communications, certainly those communications, and now what we’re hearing from his other colleagues up at Walter Reed, any combination of those factors, as long as it was not based solely on his exercise of his constitutional freedom, could have formed the basis of further inquiry and investigation by the FBI.

SEN. COLLINS: So if we’re being told that one reason this was not aggressively pursued was concerns that it would violate the FISA restrictions or the attorney general’s guidelines, you would disagree with that decision, based on what you know?

MS. TOWNSEND: Based on what I know now, yes, I would disagree with that. And frankly, this is, Senator, why I mentioned my concern about political correctness. I think we have to ensure that our investigators feel sufficiently backed up, if you will, to follow the facts wherever they lead them. And if the facts lead them to an investigation of a senior member of the uniformed military, who happens to be a Muslim doctor, then that’s where they lead them. But they have to feel confident that they can pursue the facts wherever they take them, against whoever the target may be.
—-

MR. JENKINS: Now, at a glance, Major Hasan’s rampage at Fort Hood looks a lot like what used to be called “going postal,” a deepening sense of person grievance culminating in a homicidal rampage directed against co-workers, in this case, fellow soldiers. For Hasan, “going jihad” reflects the channeling of obvious personality problems into a deadly fanaticism.

We must wait, really, for a full inquiry to thoroughly understand Hasan’s motives, his preparations, his objectives. But on the basis of what has been reported in the news media, we clearly have a troubled man who engaged himself with extremist ideologies via the Internet that resonated with and reinforced his own anger leading him, at some point, to a decision to kill.

GEN. KEANE: [So what we are dealing with here now, in my view, dealing with jihadist extremist, potentially, certainly the preliminary evidence would suggest that,] [SEN. LIEBERMAN: Right…] — that those kind of guidelines, in terms of defining that and how to deal with that, as a specific case, and that behavior and that attitude and that rhetoric, are not in the hands of our commanders.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. Okay, that’s a real — if our investigation finds that that’s true, and I suspect it is, that’s a real omission and an area for correction, particularly in light of the record that other witnesses have testified to of the way in which jihadists, or people who are actually being self-radicalized or radicalized over the Internet, are being exhorted to attack the American military on bases, not just abroad but here at home.

My time is up. Thank you, General.

Senator Collins.

Related Topics: Homegrown Terror

h1

The War On Terror On Trial

November 23, 2009

Article: The War on Terror on Trial | IBD: 19 November 2009

23 November 2009

The Democrat party is a party of destruction.  Going after President Bush for doing all that he could do to protect America is a clear sign of the sickness of this party of misfits – who hate liberty, who have no understanding of Islam’s danger to our security.

What has Obama done to lend us any trust?

We don’t believe that Obama is smart enough to deal with this trial in “New York, New York” – like his buddy Eric – we don’t trust him either.

All these clowns want to do is embarrass George Bush – prove to the world that the Democrat Party’s ‘values’ are different.

The tragic issue for America is that they have no inkling and certainly no knowledge of radical Islam’s plans for America.

————————

A jury of his peers? – one Islamist on the jury (which Obama will encourage) and the jury system will collapse.

And imagine tens of thousands of Islamists in the streets of “New York, New York” – a subject already being discussed in the media and already being discussed in conversations right here in Ann Arbor.

Don

The War On Terror On Trial

19 Nov. 2009

Justice: Attorney General Holder’s testimony on Wednesday provided no credible rationale for sending the 9/11 conspirators into the civilian federal court system. This is 100% politics.

Steam was pouring out of Eric Holder’s ears after Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., quoted from former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy’s National Review article this week. McCarthy described Holder as “a lawyer whose firm is among those responsible for the litigation-driven delay that became a lawfare triumph for al-Qaida.”

And he pointed out that once the administration Holder serves took over, “Obama shut down the (military) commission despite the jihadists’ efforts to conclude it by pleading guiltyso that we can instead endure an incredibly expensive and burdensome civilian trial that will take years to complete.”

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Justice Denied

November 16, 2009

Justice Denied

IBD: 16 Nov. 2009

In this March 1, 2003 file picture, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is seen shortly after his capture during a raid in Pakistan. Attorney General Eric Holder...In this March 1, 2003 file picture, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is seen shortly after his capture during a raid in Pakistan. Attorney General Eric Holder.

War On Terror: Eric Holder’s move to try the 9/11 masterminds in Manhattan makes it official: This administration has reverted to pre-9/11 “crime” fighting.

Amid all the talk during the attorney general’s surreal press conference of the “crime” committed eight years ago, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon wasn’t even mentioned.

Lest anyone forget, the military headquarters of the United States was attacked that day along with the Twin Towers.

An entire wedge of the Ring was gutted when the Saudi hijackers slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into it. Nearly 200 military personnel were killed, along with the passengers and crew of the hijacked jet.

The jet was a weapon used to attack the very center of our military. That was not a “crime,” as some say. It was an act of war.

And 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, along with the four other al-Qaida terrorist co-conspirators Holder wants to try, are no mere criminals. They are enemy combatants — and should be treated as such.

Yet this administration has adopted the same crime-centered mentality as the last Democratic administration. The one that treated al-Qaida’s first World Trade Center bombing as a “crime.” And al-Qaida’s attack on the U.S. embassies in Africa as a “crime.” And even al-Qaida’s attack on the USS Cole as a “crime.”

All were prosecuted in U.S. courts. A lot of good that did.

While President Bill Clinton was busy preparing indictments against the terrorists, al-Qaida was already plotting its next move. It hit the Pentagon just nine months after Clinton and his crime-fighters left office.

Maddeningly, this administration is repeating the Clinton administration’s mistake.

KSM and the other terrorists, er, “defendants” aren’t even U.S. citizens. They don’t deserve all the rights afforded citizens in our civilian court system. They shouldn’t be allowed to use our courts as a platform to promulgate their ideology of hate. Which they will, sure as Osama bin Laden is smiling right now.

This will only serve to inspire more homegrown terrorists — and stab at the hearts of the relatives of 9/11 victims.

Holder clucked that the “trials will be open to the public and the world.” And they will turn into circuses, playing right into the hands of the enemy.

These trials will drag on for years, perhaps even decades, as defense lawyers file endless motions and appeals. Meanwhile, valuable intelligence about interrogation techniques and other methods we’ve used against al-Qaida will be revealed to the enemy during trial discovery.

This move to a civilian court makes no sense at all, except viewed through a political prism. Maybe the White House wants to make its Jan. 22 deadline to close Gitmo. Or maybe it’s keen to publicly differentiate itself from the previous administration, which was considerably tougher on terrorists.

Either way, it’s an unwise move. It will only remind people how much America has shrunk in the last nine months.

h1

Hasan and the Big Lie: U.S. “War” Against Islam

November 13, 2009

Hasan and the Big Lie: U.S. “War” Against Islam

IPT News
November 10, 2009

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1508/hasan-and-the-big-lie-us-war-against-islam

When an American-born radical Islamist cleric chose to praise last week’s Fort Hood shooting spree by Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, part of the rationale was that no Muslim could faithfully serve the U.S. armed forces.

To Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, that’s because “The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam.”

A 2005 Canadian study of radicalism concluded that this theme is a potent tool in recruiting Muslims and turning them into violent extremists. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) report was on youth radicalism and Hasan is a 39-year old with advanced college degrees.

Associates are stepping forward with accounts showing that Hasan was frustrated by what he saw as an American war against his faith.

The Washington Post obtained a copy of Hasan’s June 2007 presentation at as part of his residency program at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Among the statements that disturbed his colleagues, Hasan declared that “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.”

A student who took an environmental health class with Hasan at Uniformed Services of the Health Sciences in Bethesda describes him as someone who believed the United States was waging war against Islam. At the end of the class, all of the students had to give a presentation. Many wrote about course-related topics such as dry-cleaning chemicals and mold in homes, Lt. Col. Val Finnell said.

But Hasan (who told classmates he was “a Muslim first and an American second,”) chose instead to write about the wrongness of the war on terror. A former classmate told the New York Times that Hasan gave a PowerPoint presentation approximately one year ago entitled “Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam.”

Hasan has not been charged in the shootings which left 13 people dead. [ 14w/child] Sources have indicated he will face a military court martial for murder charges that could bring the death penalty.

According to the CSIS report, “the perception that Islam is under attack from the West” is the most important factor in persuading would-be jihadists that they must preemptively and violently defend Islam from these perceived enemies.

According to a summary of the report’s findings:

“A few will act on these events and support or carry out terrorism in an attempt to change Western foreign or military policy. These individuals take the violent defense of Islam as a personal goal and religious obligation.”

The idea that the United States is fighting a war against Islam has been advanced by Osama bin Laden, who has cited Western efforts to isolate Hamas and support for a peacekeeping force as evidence of a “Zionist-crusaders war on Islam.” Awlaki, a former spiritual leader at Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, works to encourage jihadist activity with online lectures from his home base in Yemen.

Awlaki, may have crossed paths with Hasan, who attended Dar al-Hijrah in 2001. U.S. officials knew Hasan sent 10 to 20 messages to Awlaki last year and this year, but counterterrorism officials said these were consistent with a research project Hasan was conducting on post-traumatic stress disorder.

In praising Hasan as a hero, Awlaki called him “a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”

While American Islamist organizations are quick to condemn the Fort Hood massacre and are desperately trying to cast it as a mere criminal act, they have fueled the U.S. “war on Islam” canard since 2001. It has been used to squelch serious debate over their behavior and to discredit virtually all U.S. government efforts to combat Islamist terror. It should come as no surprise, though, that some jihadists hear this and feel compelled to “respond” to the imaginary threat.

Leading the pack is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which routinely casts federal investigations and prosecutions involving alleged terrorists and financiers as a war on Islam.

For example:

  • After the U.S. government froze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in 2001, CAIR and other Muslim organizations issued a press release expressing concern that these charges “result from what appears to be a ‘war on Muslims’ rather than a ‘war on terror.’
  • Responding in June 2002 to a Justice Department initiative to locate suspected terrorists, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad asked: “What is next? Forcing American Muslims to wear a star and crescent as a means of identification for law enforcement authorities?”
  • In 2003, after U.S. Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) held hearings on Wahhabist influence in the United States, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declared that Kyl and Schumer “are jumping on this issue in order to demonize all Muslim groups and all Muslims in America.”
  • In 2004, when FBI Director Robert Mueller asked Americans to be on the lookout for seven Muslim terror suspects, Hooper dismissed Mueller’s request as “part of the ’round up the usual suspects’ mentality.” Hooper added: “When you don’t have any other leads, you gather up the Muslims.”
  • “The new perception is that the United States has entered a war with Islam itself,” CAIR Chairman Parvez Ahmed said at the National Press Club in Washington in July 2007.

CAIR is by no means alone in this propaganda campaign. Officials with the Muslim Students Association, Islamic Society of North America and Muslim Public Affairs Council all have repeated the theme.

It’s a little ironic that counter-terror policy is viewed as an attack on Islam when CAIR and other Islamist groups immediately seek to remove religious motivations from terrorist attacks like Hasan’s, and others.

No one is saying people can’t disagree with U.S. policy and tactics in the fight against terrorists. At some point, though, the critics need to assess whether their approach does more harm than good. Few things have been more harmful than Hasan’s rampage.

Related Topics: Homegrown Terror

h1

Cartoon: Hasan – Political Correctness

November 12, 2009

h1

Fort Hood: Jihad’s 5th Column

November 9, 2009

Jihad’s 5th Column

IBD: 9 Nov. 09

Hasan: Invisible with PC blinders on? APHasan: Invisible with PC blinders on? AP

 

War On Terror: The Fort Hood terrorist is being portrayed as an “anomaly,” an “aberration,” a “lone wolf.” Sadly, he’s just one of many examples of jihadist traitors in the ranks of the military.

Together they form a dangerous Fifth Column, and the Pentagon — thanks to institutionalized political correctness — is doing next to nothing to root them out .

Instead, brass are actively recruiting Muslim soldiers — whose ranks have swelled to more than 15,000 — and catering to their faith by erecting mosques even at Marine headquarters in Quantico, Va. More, they’re hiring Muslim chaplains endorsed by radical Islamic front groups, who convert and radicalize soldiers.

In the wake of the worst domestic military-base massacre in U.S. history, this is an outrage to say the least. And the PC blinders explain how Fort Hood commanders could have failed so horrifically in protecting their force from the internal threat there.

The terrorist suspect, an Islamic fanatic, penetrated deep into the Army’s officer corps before gunning down, execution-style, more than 40 of his fellow soldiers. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly killed 13 at the Texas post, which boasts some 40 Muslims.

Witnesses say he shouted “Allahu Akbar” — Allah is great! — before opening fire in a crowded building where troops were sitting ducks, waiting to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan, both wars that Hasan angrily opposed. “Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor,” he reportedly said earlier this year, referring to the U.S. — the country he swore to protect.

During the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, another devout Muslim in the Army had a similar conflict. Sgt. Hasan Akbar also resorted to violence, fragging 17 fellow soldiers, killing two. Why? He opposed the killing of fellow Muslims. “You guys are coming into our countries, and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children,” he was overheard by soldiers who survived the grenade attack as saying.

Clearly, his loyalties lay elsewhere. And he’s hardly alone:

Navy Signalman Hassan Abujihaad last year was convicted of tipping off al-Qaida to battle group movements in the Persian Gulf, including disclosing classified documents detailing the group’s vulnerability to terror attack.

• Army reservist Jeffrey Battle in 2003 pleaded guilty to conspiring to wage war against the U.S., confessing he enlisted “to receive military training to use against America.”

• Army reservist Semi Osman in 2002 was arrested for providing material support to al-Qaida and pleaded guilty to weapons charges after agreeing to testify against other terror suspects.

• Marine Abdul Raheem al-Arshad Ali trained at a suspected al-Qaida camp and was charged with selling a semi-automatic handgun to Osman.

• Army Sgt. Ali Mohamed trained Green Berets at Fort Bragg’s elite special warfare school before stealing military secrets for al-Qaida and helping plan bombings at three U.S. embassies in 1998.

• Army Spec. Ryan Anderson in 2004 was convicted of leaking military intelligence to al-Qaida terrorists, including sensitive information about the vulnerabilities of armored Humvees.

• Army sniper John Muhammad was put on death row after fatally shooting 10 in the nation’s capital a year after 9/11.

While good and decent Muslim soldiers have served admirably, the list of those who have put their allegiance to Islam above country is long, and this is by no means an exhaustive accounting.

The Pentagon must do a better job of vetting such recruits. And it must do a better job of force protection — starting with beefing up its counterspying operations — before more intelligence is compromised and more soldiers are lost.

h1

VIDEO: Rifqa Bary Update and Death Threat

November 9, 2009

http://www.floridasecuritycouncil.org/rifqa/death_threat

h1

The massacre at Fort Hood and Muslim soldiers with attitude

November 6, 2009

The massacre at Fort Hood and Muslim soldiers with attitude

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 6, 2009 12:01 AM

Scroll for updates…7:39am Eastern press conference…Ft. Hood officials disclose that the murder victims included 12 soldiers and 1 civilian…first responder heroine who shot Hasan is in stable condition…witnesses still being interviewed “all through the night”…they confirm that Hasan was wearing his uniform…

I was traveling to Wichita for a speaking event/fundraiser (which I’ll tell you more about later) when news of the Fort Hood massacre broke. Please continue to pray for the 12 murder victims [update 11/6: now 13 dead] and their families, and the 30 wounded and their families.

Allahpundit at Hot Air has a massive, blow-by-blow post on all the latest developments. The Christian Science Monitor profiles Nidal Malik Hasan, the Muslim soldier identified by the military as the shooter:

Terry Lee, a retired Army colonel who knew Hasan, told Fox News about a story he heard secondhand. He said a fellow colleague had told him that Hasan had made “outlandish comments” about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and US involvement in them and that “Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

“[He] made comments about how we shouldn’t be over there – you need to lock it up, Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor,” Lee added.

But the suspect’s cousin, Nader Hasan, gave Fox News a different picture. He said his cousin had never deployed but was affected by the war and had been concerned about his impending deployment.

“He would tell us how he would hear things, horrific things, things from war probably affecting him psychologically,” Nader Hasan said.

From AP:

His name appears on radical Internet postings. A fellow officer says he fought his deployment to Iraq and argued with soldiers who supported U.S. wars. He required counseling as a medical student because of problems with patients.

There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive. But details of his life and mindset, emerging from official sources and personal acquaintances, are troubling.

“Troubling.” And familiar.

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

Here’s the Scribd comment of Nidal Hasan:

There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.

Those of you with long memories will remember all those who came before Hasan. Here is my column from March 2003 on Muslim soldiers with attitude:

Sgt. Asan Akbar, a Muslim American soldier with the 326th Engineer Battalion, had an “attitude problem.”

According to his superiors and acquaintances, Akbar’s attitude was bitterly anti-American and staunchly pro-Muslim. So how did this devout follower of the so-called Religion of Peace work out his attitudinal problems last weekend?

By lobbing hand grenades and aiming his M-4 automatic rifle into three tents filled with sleeping commanding officers at the 101st Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade operations center in Kuwait.

Akbar is the lone suspect being detained in the despicable attack, which left more than a dozen wounded and one dead. Surviving soldiers say Akbar, found cowering in a bunker with shrapnel injuries, was overheard ranting after the assault: “You guys are coming into our countries, and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.”

“Our”? At least there’s no doubt about where this Religion of Peace practitioner’s true loyalties lie.

Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an “isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith.” But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly p.c.

Sgt. Akbar is not the only MSWA — Muslim soldier with attitude — suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security:

– Ali A. Mohamed. Mohamed, a major in the Egyptian army, immigrated to the U.S. in 1986 and joined the U.S. Army while a resident alien. This despite being on a State Department terrorist watch list before securing his visa. An avowed Islamist, he taught classes on Muslim culture to U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, N.C., and obtained classified military documents. He was granted U.S. citizenship over the objections of the CIA.

A former classmate, Jason T. Fogg, recalled that Mohamed was openly critical of the American military. “To be in the U.S. military and have so much hate toward the U.S. was odd. He never referred to America as his country.”

Soon after he was honorably discharged from the Army in 1989, Mohamed hooked up with Osama bin Laden as an escort, trainer, bagman and messenger. Mohamed used his U.S. passport to conduct surveillance at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi; he later pled guilty to conspiring with bin Laden to “attack any Western target in the Middle East” and admitted his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings that killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.

Ain’t multiculturalism grand?

– Semi Osman. An ethnic Lebanese born in Sierra Leone and a Seattle-based Muslim cleric, Osman served in a naval reserve fueling unit based in Tacoma, Wash. He had access to fuel trucks similar to the type used by al Qaeda in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, which killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded nearly 400 other Americans.

Osman was arrested last May as part of a federal investigation into the establishment of a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon. Osman recently pleaded guilty to a weapons violation, and the feds dropped immigration charges against him in exchange for his testimony.

Ain’t open borders grand?

– John Muhammad. The accused Beltway sniper and Muslim convert was a member of the Army’s 84th Engineering Company. In an eerie parallel to the Akbar case, Muhammad is suspected of throwing a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers as they slept before the ground-attack phase of Gulf War I in 1991. Muhammad’s superior, Sgt. Kip Berentson, told both Newsweek and The Seattle Times that he immediately suspected Muhammad, who was “trouble from day one.”

Curiously, Muhammad was admitted to the Army despite being earlier court-martialed for willfully disobeying orders, striking another noncommissioned officer, wrongfully taking property, and being absent without leave while serving in the Louisiana National Guard.

Although Muhammad was led away in handcuffs and transferred to another company pending charges for the grenade attack, an indictment never materialized. Muhammad was honorably discharged from the Army in 1994. Eight years later, he was arrested in the 21-day Beltway shooting spree that left 10 dead and three wounded.

Ain’t tolerance grand?

– Jeffrey Leon Battle. A former Army reservist, Battle was indicted in October 2002 for conspiring to levy war against the United States and “enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America.” According to the Justice Department, he planned to wage war against American soldiers in Afghanistan.

Ain’t diversity grand?

“It’s bad enough we have to worry about enemy forces, but now we have to worry about our own guys,” Spc. Autumn Simmer told the Los Angeles Times this week after the assault on the 101st Airborne. The Islamist infiltration of our troops is scandalous. Not one more American, soldier or civilian, must be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders, and tolerance of the murderous “attitude” of Jihad.

FYI: Convicted Beltway sniper John Muhammad is scheduled to be executed next week. No doubt the families of the Muslim sniper victims are re-living the horror tonight.

FYI: Muslim US soldier Hasan Abujihaad was convicted last year on espionage and material terrorism support charges
after serving aboard the USS Benfold and sharing classified info with al Qaeda financiers, including movements of US ships just six months after al Qaeda operatives had killed 17 Americans aboard the USS Cole in the port of Yemen.

On Twitter, follow #fthood for news updates.

More Twitter-related news here.

***

Clarice Feldman notes President Obama’s “odd” — to say the least — reaction to the attack on Fort Hood soldiers:

On Thursday, 11 soldiers and civilian police at Fort Hood were slaughtered execution-style at close range and over 30 others wounded, allegedly by a U.S. Army Major Malik Nadal Hasan. The President immediately addressed the nation concerning this horrific event.

However, his expression of grief was very odd. He spent the first two minutes of the four-and-a-half minute address in a light-hearted discussion of his earlier “Tribal Nations Conference” on Native American rights, including a “shout out” recognition of a conference attendee.

When he finally got around to the purpose for his public appearance, he gave an uninspired and rambling dissertation on the tragedy. Even then, he could not keep the topic focused on sympathy for the pain of others:

I want all of you to know that as Commander in Chief, that there’s no greater honor, but no greater responsibility for me (emphasis his) than to make sure that the extraordinary men and women in uniform are properly cared for…

Poor soul, it’s so saddening to know how this tragedy affects him. Listening to this address provides some insight into Obama’s character and how he ranks his priorities.

***

Business as usual: The whitewashing of jihad by the MSM. See here and here.

I’ve said it many times over the years and it bears repeating again as cable TV talking heads ask in bewilderment how all the red flags Hasan raised could have been ignored: Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror.

***

Crikey:

U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Austin, was briefed by military officials and said Hasan had taken some unusual classes for someone studying about mental health.

“He took a lot of extra classes in weapons training, which seems a little odd for a psychiatrist,” McCaul said.

McCaul said Hasan had received poor grades for his work at Walter Reed and was not happy about his situation in Fort Hood, where Hasan apparently felt like “he didn’t fit in.”

“He’s disgruntled because he had a poor performance evaluation, he doesn’t believe in the mission, he’s looking at getting transferred to Afghanistan or Iraq,” McCaul said. “He’s not happy about all that.”

McCaul added that officials planned to interview Hasan to try to determine for sure that he was not working with foreign agents.

“From an intelligence standpoint, that’s key, finding out if he talked to anyone overseas,” McCaul said.

***

Bruce Bawer has a brilliant essay on the MSM whitewashing of jihad:

CNN (ditto the New York Times website) was considerably less useful than the tidbits I picked up online by following links on various blogs and in Facebook postings. They led me to (among other things) an AP story, a Daily Mail article, and a Fox News interview that provided telling details: Hasan had apparently been a devout Muslim; Arabic words, reportedly a Muslim prayer, had been posted on his apartment door in Maryland; in conversations with colleagues he had repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers; on Thursday morning, hours before the massacre, he had supposedly handed out copies of the Koran to neighbors. A couple of these facts eventually surfaced on CNN, but only briefly; they were rushed past, left untouched, unexamined; the network seemed to be making a masterly effort to avoid giving this data a cold, hard look. Meanwhile it spent time doing heavy-handed spin — devoting several minutes, for example, to an inane interview with a forensic psychiatrist who talked about the stress of treating soldiers bearing the emotional scars of war. The obvious purpose was to turn our eyes away from Islamism and toward psychiatric instability as a motive.

…after [the Anderson Cooper show] was over, we got a “special edition” of Larry King Live hosted by Wolf Blitzer. This one really took the cake. By way of “illuminating” Hasan’s actions, Blitzer interviewed a panel of — no, not experts on Islamic jihad, but psychiatrists. Blitzer endlessly repeated the mantra that Hasan had been “taunted” for being Muslim, had feared going to a war zone, and had ultimately gone “berserk,” and the docs echoed this line. “He did not reach for help when he should have,” lamented one panelist. Another opined: “It sounded like it got to be too much for him.” Yet another told us: “All kind of people need help who aren’t getting help. … He was feeling picked on by his colleagues. … He was strained. He was scared.”

Could there be a more bitter contrast? At Fort Hood, so many courageous GIs, all of them prepared to risk their lives fighting the Islamic jihadist enemy in defense of our freedom, several of them now dead. And, on our TV screens, so many apparently craven journalists, public officials, psychiatrists, and (alas) even military brass — all but a few of whom seemed unwilling to do anything more than hint obliquely at the truth that obviously lies at the root of this monstrous act.

And now: Reports that Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” during the attack.

Nothing to see here. Move along…

Posted in: Islam, War