Israel Military Forum

Israel Military Forum (
-   North America (
-   -   Muslim Actions in North America (

Paparock 04-12-2010 01:20 PM

Muslim Actions in North America
Dhimmi reporter, unsavory Islamic group seek slick Muslim to deceive Americans about Islam

MPAC unsavory? See here.

I've got a better idea for Mary Sanchez and MPAC: if they really want to "unravel" Americans' "misperceptions" of Islam, here is an easy way they can do it without going to all the time, trouble and expense of finding and hiring a slick PR man:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.

2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.

3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.

4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.

5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! "Misperceptions" of Islam will no longer hold sway among Americans. And "outright bigotry"? Forget it! It will be about as common as outright anti-Buddhist bigotry!

"Wanted: A calm, credible voice to soothe Americans' fear of Islam," by Mary Sanchez for the McClatchy Newspapers, April 9:
Here's a job posting worthy of only the most stellar applicants. In fact, only those rare individuals with near-superhuman powers to untangle the crossed circuitry in the American mindset need apply.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council is seeking "high-energy candidates" for a communications coordinator. I'd love to eavesdrop on those interviews.

"What do you believe would be the best approach for unraveling the misperceptions and outright bigotry toward Muslims that goes virtually unchallenged daily in the U.S.?"

Yes, the American Muslim community needs a Walter Cronkite, conceded Haris Tarin, a director in the council's Washington office. Muslims need a spokesperson with the credibility to soothe and educate their suspicious countrymen. Despite consistently condemning acts of terrorism, American Muslims find that the No. 1 charge against them is that they do not denounce terrorism.

As Tarin and others point out, Muslims in the United States do not control their own story telling. And far too often, they leave a vacuum only too readily filled by those who view Muslims as anti-Christian terror suspects first, foremost and sometimes completely.

Muslims need to imprint a more positive image in the public mind, and the best way to do that is by pointing out more effectively who they are, rather than taking a defensive posture....

Paparock 04-12-2010 01:23 PM

Play For Keeps
Play For Keeps

The terrorist attacks against the United States on 9/11/2001 must be a big joke to them. Maybe they had a good laugh when a Muslim terrorist tried to set off his plastic explosives-laden panties on a Christmas Day 2009 flight over Detroit.

Two recent incidents, both perpetrated by those who follow the teachings of an ancient desert raider, were unprovoked, disruptive, and have placed monetary costs upon American taxpayers.

First, a lightweight who can't hold his liquor named Ibrahim Khalil Zarou, while on a Carnival cruise ship, thought he'd be cool and yell "We are jihad," and "Come to the top deck and watch the bomb."

As a result, the ship, which was carrying more than 3700 other passengers and crew, was held four miles off the Florida coast for hours while multiple law enforcement agencies ran an explosives sweep.

Then just days ago, a sophomoric "diplomat" from Qatar named Mohammed Al-Madadi, while on a flight to Denver to visit a convicted and jailed Islamic terrorist, ignored the rules, went into the restroom of the airliner, and lit up a smoke.

When questioned about the smell of smoke coming from the restroom, Al-Madadi was restrained and questioned by air marshals after saying that he was trying to "light his shoes."

As a result, fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the plane.
These are just two of several examples of this behavior. Are they practice runs, attempts to remind us of what Muslim terrorists do best, or feigned victimhood incidents with the aim of filing discrimination lawsuits?

We don't know. So going forward, they should be shown the same respect and consideration that they show everyone else, and get what they give.
While decent people desire to live in peace, ignorant creatures who think that they exist for the sole purpose of intimidating or destroying everyone who disagrees with their century-impaired way of doing things walk among us.

Bullies can be put in their place by various methods, but appeasement and surrender aren't part of the recipe.

Today, Americans have been put into the position of "taking our country back" from politicking prima donnas who...
  • Will never possess the fortitude, intellect, or forethought possessed by the framers of our United States Constitution.
  • Have refused to listen to the American people.
  • Have put their egos ahead of the nation's well being.
National security from our shores to our streets is a vital part of all this. There are those in the United States who will not melt into our society, and spend their time running interference for Islamic jihadists. They began as intimidators, were exposed as masqueraders, and turned out to be Islam's version of the Keystone Kops.

They've convinced themselves that we're just a small minority of Americans who are on to them. Poll numbers show otherwise.

Like many elected officials who face being voted out of office by the American people because of their insolence, jihadists and their cheerleaders face learning the hard way that the United States is not a can of religious or political Play-Doh, and it is not up for grabs.

Paparock 04-12-2010 01:33 PM

Breaking news: the Muslims saved civilization!
Breaking news: the Muslims saved civilization!

News item:

"Scholar of Islamic thought to speak," from the Ithaca Journal, April 11:
The second Arts and Sciences Humanities Lecture, "How the Muslims Saved Civilization: the Reception of Greek Learning in Arabic," will be given by distinguished scholar of Islamic thought Peter Adamson, professor of ancient and medieval philosophy, King's College London.

The lecture will be held at 4:30 p.m. April 13, at the Hollis E. Cornell Auditorium in Goldwin Smith Hall. A reception will follow the lecture in the Ruth Woolsey Findley Gallery of Art on the lower level of Goldwin Smith Hall. Both events are free.
Dr. Adamson is likely to be retailing the idea that Islamic culture was once a beacon of learning and enlightenment -- a common myth, and one that is ultimately meant to make non-Muslims relax and love the jihad.

But in fact, much of the most common claims about the great achievements of Islamic culture have been exaggerated, often for quite transparent apologetic motives. The astrolabe was developed, if not perfected, long before Muhammad was born. The zero, which is often attributed to Muslims, and what we know today as "Arabic numerals" did not originate in Arabia, but in pre-Islamic India. Aristotle's work was preserved in Arabic not initially by Muslims at all, but by Christians such as the fifth century priest Probus of Antioch, who introduced Aristotle to the Arabic-speaking world. Another Christian, Huneyn ibn-Ishaq (809-873), translated many works by Aristotle, Galen, Plato and Hippocrates into Syriac. His son then translated them into Arabic. The Syrian Christian Yahya ibn 'Adi (893-974) also translated works of philosophy into Arabic, and wrote one of his own, The Reformation of Morals. His student, another Christian named Abu 'Ali 'Isa ibn Zur'a (943-1008), also translated Aristotle and others from Syriac into Arabic. The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital was founded in Baghdad during the Abbasid caliphate -- not by a Muslim, but a Nestorian Christian. A pioneering medical school was founded at Gundeshapur in Persia -- by Assyrian Christians.

The point here is simply that the great achievements of Islamic culture are being exaggerated for political and apologetic reasons today. For this sort of thing to go on at jihad-justifying Islamic websites is one thing, but an academic should know better. Emphasis on "should."

If anyone makes Dr. Adamson's lecture and he takes questions, these would be some facts that one might politely and respectfully ask him about.

Paparock 04-12-2010 02:23 PM

The Return of Tariq Ramadan
The Return of Tariq Ramadan
Inside the world-view of a master deceiver
by David Solway
Islamic apologist Tariq Ramadan has returned to the U.S., the ban against his entry to the country, issued under the Patriot Act, having been lifted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. After addressing audiences in New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, he will revisit Canada where he will speak at the Palais de Congrès in Montreal. The question is: What is he really up to? Ramadan is used to meeting with rock star type adulation, but a skeptical attitude may be rather more appropriate.

In a talk given at Olivieri Bookstore in Montreal on January 3, 2007 to promote his book La tyrannie de la pénitence, philosopher Pascal Bruckner argued that the failure of Muslim immigrants to integrate into European society is owing largely to the multicultural tendency to promote special interest groups and extraterritorial ethnicities. At the same time, as Bruckner stresses in the book itself, “On oublie qu’il existe un despotisme des minorités rétives à l’assimilation si celle-ci n’accompangne pas d’un statut d’extraterritorialité.” (“We forget that there exists a despotism of minorities that resists assimilation if the latter is not accompanied by a status of extraterritoriality.”)

This “resistance” is precisely the situation that Tariq Ramadan is attempting to remedy, but in a way that does not augur well for the host societies of the West. Pulpiting the ideal of Muslim social integration and positing a supposed underlying affinity between what are clearly two opposing creeds and cultures, Ramadan intends something very different from what we usually understand by “assimilation” and “accommodation.” Assimilation for Ramadan really works in reverse and means, in effect, the gradual absorption of the West into the social and political construct of Islam. Accommodation seems to imply mutuality but, again, its ultimate aim is somewhat different from what we might expect. Accommodation is what must presently be accorded to the Muslim community, which may in the course of time graciously accommodate us in turn should we convert to the faith or pay the jizzya (poll tax). Ramadan’s discourse sounds at first like he’s using a terminology of reconciliation but it’s all bling and glitz meant to embroider an ulterior purpose, something initially nebulous but no less sinister for all that. Ramadan’s agenda is not to enlighten but to distract.

Thus he is heavily into the redefinition of certain pivotal terms as they enter the mainstream discussion in order to advance the political structure he is advocating. At a French language public lecture delivered at the Université de Montréal on November 6, 2009, he closed on what he called the “three L’s” Muslims are enjoined to grasp and manipulate, translated from the French as: “the language of the country you live in, the knowledge of the legal framework…[and] loyalty.” Though his lexicon of choice appears inoffensive at first blush, it is the epitome of equivocation. The subtext of the passage is obvious to anyone who has tracked Ramadan’s modus operandi. The knowledge of language and law is necessary to further the Islamic cause to which, it is implicitly understood, Muslims are required to be loyal.

As political commentator and founder of the Point de bascule (English: The Tipping Point) website, Marc Lebuis, sees it, Ramadan “basically ‘participates’ in the democratic process only to redefine our classical liberal definition of citizenship with the intent to Islamize our institutions” (personal communication). Similarly, Quebec parliamentarian, Fatima Houda-Pepin, campaigning against the introduction of shari’a law into the body politic, warned: “One of the strengths of Islamists is that they know you very well. They know our history, they know our culture, they know our justice system.” This is uniquely the case with Ramadan, whose real purpose is to move Muslim immigrant society from the ghetto into the citadel, from a “status of extraterritoriality” into the nucleus of the public domain, where it will eventually proceed not to integrate but to dominate.

For Ramadan, therefore, “reconciliation” is not a coming-to-terms between Islamic particularism and Western multicultural hospitality, but a way of insinuating Islamic law, custom and usage into the center of Western public and institutional space. As he proposes in Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, Muslims must bring “the overall philosophy of the Islamic message” into Western education, assuming “their Islamic frame of reference as a starting point.” Non-Islamic readers who might be alarmed at his thesis are assured that Islam is a Western religion, that Islam’s major philosophers are really “European Muslim thinkers,” and, to clinch the matter, that Islam is perfectly compatible with Western norms and values.

The facts suggest otherwise, whether we are considering the imperious summons to violence in the pages of the Koran and the Hadith, the undoubted truth, as Samuel Huntington put it in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, that “the borders of Islam are bloody,” the tradition of gender apartheid in the Islamic world or the incidence of domestic terrorist attacks upon non-combatant citizens. All this is hidden under Ramadan’s thick impasto. One must observe him closely, follow his discursive peregrinations, catch him in those unguarded moments and occasional slip-ups when he gives the game away and his shadowy gospel begins to emerge.

To take just a few examples. Speaking before a captivated audience, he refers to a hypothetical encounter with a Muslim American who believes Islam is in a state of war with the West, which justifies the deployment of ruse or deceit. Ramadan replies to his fictive interlocutor: “la ruse en temps de guerre, bien sur” (“ruse in a time of war, quite certainly”). Since this is also a war of words and images, as he goes on to emphasize, the language of ambiguity, which he calls a “double discours,” is essential. Of course, skilled casuist that he is, he tends to bob and weave, alluding to the importance of the social contract in an era of peace. But the implication is undeniable. At other times, he will become transparently insistent, as at the above-mentioned conference at the Université de Montréal. Irritated by a probing question—according to Le Presse columnist Nathalie Petrowski—he was suddenly transformed into a fundamentalist preacher, “stressing the virtues of modesty in clothing and denouncing Western vulgarity…and shameless sexuality.” Here it is not even a question of tonal innuendo or conjectural illustrations but of direct utterance. Interestingly, Rotterdam’s city administration has recently recognized the discrepancy between Ramadan’s self-presentation and his deeper convictions, dismissing him from his post as an adviser on civic integration when it surfaced that he was hosting a weekly show for Iranian TV.

Little by little, the kliegs of disclosure are being switched on, revealing a virtuoso of duplicity at work—at least for those not blinded by poor judgment, intellectual laziness or an ideological parti pris. As David Rusin writes in Islamist Watch, Ramadan “has justified bombings in Israel, Russia, and Iraq as legitimate resistance; he went no further than calling for a “moratorium” against stoning while the practice is debated; he supports restrictions on the public lives of women; he demands that integration take place on Muslims’ terms; he led a boycott against the 2008 Turin Book Fair because it honored Israel; and on and on. He is no moderate; he is a master of taqiyya.”

Taqiyya is a Koranic concept which sanctions various forms of lying under certain prescribed conditions: self-defense (Koran 3:28) or coercion (Koran 16: 104-110). The latter passage guarantees that “those who are forced to recant while their hearts remain loyal to the faith shall be absolved.” But the principle has been expanded to apply to a multitude of disparate situations in which deceit is justified to attain approved ends, as in the prototypical ten-year Treaty of Hudaybiya in 628 C.E., which Muhammad ratified with his Meccan enemies and broke two years later when he judged his military strength sufficient to the task of conquest. War is deceit, Muhammad famously said (Bukhari hadith 52: 269) and the Koran also informs us that “Allah is the supreme Plotter,” variously translated as the “best of planners” and “the Best of Schemers” (3:55), depending on which English edition of the Koran we are consulting. But we get the point.

Taqiyya is alive and well in the contemporary world among the bearers of the Islamic message. In the words of Raymond Ibrahim, director of the Middle East Forum: “the doctrine of taqiyya goes far beyond Muslims engaging in religious dissimulation in the interest of self-preservation and encompasses deception of the infidel enemy in general… Islamic law unambiguously splits the world into two perpetually warring halves—the Islamic world versus the non-Islamic—and holds it to be God’s will for the former to subsume the latter. Yet if war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam.” For, he continues, “from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya.”

Acts of blatant terrorism, of course, are by no means ruled out, but terrorism need no longer be exclusively violent. The jihad against the West has now adopted a double strategy. Along with its standard method of spreading fear and destruction among civilian populations at large, it has conscripted to its cause a new breed of ostensibly peaceable ambassadors, smooth talkers, subtle academics and spiffy front men, summed up in the présence muselmane of Tariq Ramadan.

For one thing, his personal manner, plausible, urbane, eloquent, affable, is tailored to reassure and convince. One recalls the insight that Hamlet sets down in his tables: “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” For another, most of the time Ramadan’s textual vehicle just purrs nicely along in cruise control so the reader, lulled into a kind of waking coma, can appreciate the pleasant scenery rolling by, unaware that he is heading for a collision. Aside from such instances as those flagged above, there is little in Ramadan’s public appearances or voluminous writings that resembles what in the auto industry is acronymed NVH—“noise, vibration, harshness.” On the contrary, Tariq Ramadan is a wizard of the art of, let’s say, DBD—deft, buttoned-down dissimulation. He is quite simply the best in the field. Anyone who doubts this should remark his performance as a guest on the French TV-5 program On n’est pas couché, where he reduces a panel of experts to something akin to prostration. He plies the very summa and distillation of taqiyya, so much so that I’m tempted to call it tariqiyya.

And many of us have fallen for it big time, succumbing to the boiling frog syndrome as the water heats up slowly so that we remain comfortably in the pot. One way or another, we have become—to use Plutarch’s term in his denunciation of Herodotus whom he thought too lenient toward the enemy—philobarbaros, a friend to the barbarians, allies of those who would subdue us. As Plutarch writes in The Malice of Herodotus, “Deceitful are the phrases, deceitful the figures of Herodotus’s speeches, unsound and full of ambiguities.” This charge may or may not be true with respect to Herodotus but it certainly seems apposite with regard to Ramadan. His technique and influence are succinctly described on the Canucki Jihad website: “Tariq Ramadan is like a virus hidden inside an email.” And we have been infected. On the one hand bedazzled by his swank delivery, on the other consumed by a sense of our own exalted tolerance of the “other,” we have generally failed to detect what lurks beneath his rhetoric.

Indeed, too many of us do not seem able to comprehend that the variety of terrorism now operating on the international stage is something completely unprecedented in the unrestricted nature of its scope, the global extent of its funding, the deep dye of theological pigmentation and its flaunting of the rules of engagement. But its most potent weapon in the so-called asymmetrical war that Islam is waging against the Christian and secular West is an insidious form of persuasion that both clouds the mind and corrupts the will of its human targets. It is as if we are participating in a festival of self-immolation.

This, it seems, is the way in which we celebrate Ramadan.

Paparock 04-12-2010 02:32 PM

CAIR’s Friends in U.S. Law Enforcement
CAIR’s Friends in U.S. Law Enforcement
Why is a Los Angeles County Sheriff endorsing jihadi material published by the Muslim Brotherhood?
by Jamie Glazov

FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

You were recently in the Los Angeles area conducting lectures and book signings. Fill us in a bit about what you learned about the Los Angeles County Sheriff (Sheriff Baca) and his ties to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Gaubatz: Thank you Jamie. I spent 5 days in the LA area and utilized every minute communicating with citizens and collecting counter-terrorism intelligence on Sheriff Baca. I visited four Islamic Centers to determine their association with CAIR and likewise his link to this terrorist supporting organization.

Unfortunately for the citizens of LA, Sheriff Baca supports Islamic groups who advocate violence against the very people he is supposed to be protecting. I informed the attendees of my lectures that there are only three primary reasons anyone supports CAIR and the violent ideology they spread and advocate.

FP: Why would someone support CAIR?

Gaubatz: The first is out of pure ignorance of what CAIR advocates behind the scenes. Second: job incompetence (lack of proper training in counter-terrorism and the Islamic ideology). Third and the most worrisome: like in the case of Sheriff Baca, certain people are in bed with the enemy for financial gain or political power.

FP: Expand on why you think this is the case with Sheriff Baca.

Gaubatz: I spoke with numerous people, reviewed materials from the Islamic Centers Sheriff Baca and CAIR both endorse, and talked with officers of Sheriff Baca’s Islamic Community Affairs program. At this stage of my research I would analyze Sheriff Baca as incompetent, and regardless of the innocent lives he is jeopardizing by supporting Islamic based terror groups, he is more concerned with the votes/funds CAIR can generate for his personal political goals.

I have advised several times to readers they should not become confused by the various acronyms used by Islamic based non-profit organizations. CAIR, ISNA, MSA, MAS, MANA and the host of others are Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and they encourage through their materials terrorist attacks against our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even in America (Ft. Hood).

Readers may know I had over 23 years of U.S. Federal Service, was a Federal Agent, trained Arabic linguist, counter-terrorism specialist, visited numerous Middle east countries, was the 1st U.S. civilian Federal Agent in Iraq, had the highest U.S. government clearance, briefed into numerous ‘special government projects,’ personally conducted counter-terrorism research in over 200 Islamic Centers, obtained and reviewed thousands of documents/manuals from U.S. based Islamic Centers, and did what our federal government with vast financial and manpower resources could not do. I planned and executed an intensive (legal and professional) undercover research project placing 5 people (male and female) inside CAIR National (Top Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood operating in America) for a period of 6 months.

Based on my training and experiences, Sheriff Baca is aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood. It will be our children who will suffer. Sheriff Baca and any officer or politician who is supporting his actions should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and of course replaced with law enforcement officers who understand the violent aspects of the Islamic ideology and the Muslim Brotherhood.

If we want to save our country from Islamic terrorists, we as a country must be proactive and begin prosecuting anyone who seeks to hurt our children’s future. No longer do Americans want to see the Sheriff Bacas roll up in their decked out patrol cars, give a political speech about how effective his officers responded to a terrorist scene, and how brave everyone was. This is no longer acceptable. Sheriff Baca needs to understand if he and his officers respond to an Islamic based terrorist scene, he has failed. Neither he nor any officer who ever supported his actions should be considered a ‘hero’ after our country has been attacked and lost innocent lives due to the ignorance, incompetence, and personal political goals of men like Sheriff Baca.

FP: You mentioned you visited several Islamic Centers in the LA, CA, and area. Can you describe the type of material you observed/obtained?

Gaubatz: Of course. The four Islamic Centers I visited were Sunni/Salafist, (Wahhabi) ‘Pure Muslim’, backed by the Saudi government, CAIR (Muslim Brotherhood), and had material available for their worshippers that advocate violence against innocent people, treason and sedition. I will mention one for the time being:

Omar Ibn Al-Khattab Foundation
1025 Exposition Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90007

A few weeks ago Sheriff Baca had visited this Islamic Center with CAIR executives and publicly endorsed CAIR and the teachings of this mosque. I respectfully ask readers to review the following statements obtained in materials endorsed by CAIR and I observed/obtained in LA County and from people who support CAIR Executives:

“What should you do if you are arrested or framed by the racist, fascist, criminal police? Or the racist, fascist, criminal FBI?

Note by Gaubatz: This manual is distributed by CAIR supporters throughout the U.S. It is an 81 page manual that clearly shows their support for terrorist organizations and not our U.S. Constitution or law enforcement.

“If we really want to produce such youth who should be prepared to lay down their lives for the sake of their country (Islamic Ummah) and also for the survival of the Islamic way of life, we should undertake to give them Islamic instruction of high standard along with sophisticated military training”.

Note by Gaubatz: This manual by Maududi (Jammet Islami founder) was obtained at an LA County Islamic center who instruct their children to fight (Jihad) for Islam, not America, and to train to the highest military standard in order to defeat their enemies (Christians, Jews, and non Sharia compliant Muslims).

I ask readers to closely review the following statements from materials endorsed by CAIR, published by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and provided to Islamic Centers, schools, and libraries across America. This manual was obtained at an LA County mosque:

“Islam does not acknowledge territorial boundaries, national or popular relations, and nationalities, as these lead to separation and differentiation among people. There is no nationality for Muslim except Islam”.

Note by Gaubatz; This statement alone by the Saudi government explaining the Islamic ideology should answer the question in people’s minds if Muslims can follow Islam and be American. The answer was no 1400 years ago and is no today.

“Apostasy from Islam is a grievous crime punishable by death. One who commits apostasy from Islam rejects truth after he known it, thus, he does not deserve life.”

Note by Gaubatz: Again this manual is distributed by the Saudi government and is in thousands of Islamic centers across America. Please keep in mind the above statement made by the Saudi government that ‘Islam does not acknowledge territorial boundaries.” This means if a young Muslim child (like 17 year old Rifka Bary) decides they want to leave Islam and convert to Christianity that the Saudi government and Islam fully support killing her and anyone who leaves Islam. This is regardless of the country they reside in. This statement alone is why ‘honor killings’ of innocent Muslims are committed every year across America by Sharia compliant worshippers and the media seldom reports on them. Why? Because a large part of our media worships at the altar of political correctness and is also financially supported by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

FP: Final thoughts?

Gaubatz: Jamie; I again thank you and your organization. Sheriff Baca is not the lone senior law enforcement officer or politician who is knowingly cooperating with those forces who are working to destroy our country. They are scattered across our great country and we are currently being attacked from within, and we are losing the ‘war on terrorism.” There are few officers or employees of a politician who will not follow the orders of their ‘leader’. This equates to Sheriff Baca having the support of thousands of LA county Sheriffs who would back the Muslim Brotherhood before they would a hard working American family that prioritizes patriotism to our country above all. Or would they? I will have more intelligence on CAIR, Sheriff Baca, and other terrorist supporters on our site Thank you.

FP: Dave Gaubatz, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Paparock 04-12-2010 02:38 PM

Islamist Gülen Movement Runs U.S. Charter Schools
Islamist Gülen Movement Runs U.S. Charter Schools

by Stephen Schwartz
American Thinker

A secretive foreign network of Islamic radicals now operates dozens of charter schools — which receive government money but are not required to adopt a state-approved curriculum — on U.S. soil. The inspirer of this conspiratorial effort is Fethullah Gülen, who directs a major Islamist movement in Turkey and the Turkish diaspora, but lives in the United States. He is number 13 among the world's "50 most influential Muslims" according to one prominent listing.

Gülen has been criticized as the puppet master for the current Turkish government headed by the "soft Islamist" Justice and Development Party, known by its Turkish initials as the AKP, in its slow-motion showdown with the secularist Turkish military. But Gülen is also known in Muslim countries for his network of 500-700 Islamic schools around the world, according to differing sources favorable to his movement. A more critical view of Gülen's emphasis on education asserts that his international network of thousands of primary and secondary schools, universities, and student residences is a key element in solidifying an Islamist political agenda in Turkey.

But in startling news for Americans, the Gülen movement operates more than 85 primary and secondary schools on our soil. A roster of the Gülen schools and of the numerous foundations that support them has been released to the public by the patriotic group Act! for America. The Gülen schools are often designated as "science academies" and are concentrated in Texas, Ohio, and California — with others scattered across the rest of the country.

Two states that host Gülen charter schools are Arizona and Utah. In the former, the Daisy Education Corporation (the Gülen movement loves friendly sounding institutional names) operates three schools in Tucson: one serving kindergarten through the eighth grade, another designated as an elementary school, and a middle-high school, all under the rubric of the Sonoran Science Academy. In Phoenix it runs a satellite kindergarten-to-10th-grade campus with the same name.

The appearance of Gülen charter schools in Tucson has produced critical attention in local media. The Tucson Weekly published a report at the end of 2009 noting that the Sonoran Science Academy in the southern Arizona town had been named "charter school of the year" by the Arizona Charter School Association. But writer Tim Vanderpool reported that according to one dismayed parent, who declined identification while pointing out the Gülen movement's history of intimidating critics, "the Sonoran Academy seems constantly to be bringing Turkish educators into the United States, and subjecting students to substitute teachers while the teachers await work visas. … She says several Sonoran Academy parents believe the school has a hidden agenda to promote Gülen's brand of Turkish nationalism, advance sympathy for that country's political goals such as winning acceptance into the European Union, and discourage official acknowledgment of Turkey's genocide against the Armenians during World War I." Such issues are exotic, to say the least, for Tucson parents.

Earlier in 2009, the Beehive Science and Technology Academy, a high school in Salt Lake City, came under similar critical scrutiny from the Salt Lake Tribune. That major daily's writer, Kirsten Stewart, reported that the Utah State Charter Board had begun an investigation of the Beehive school, following complaints from a former teacher and an alarmed parent. The complainants asserted that while "Beehive advertises itself as a public charter school offering college-bound seventh through 12th graders a foundation in math and science … the school has another mission: to advance and promote certain Islamic beliefs. They point to questionable financial transactions and hiring practices as proof of the school's covert ties to Turkish Muslim preacher Fethullah Gülen."

But while Fatih Karatas, principal of the Sonoran Science Academy middle school in Tucson, flatly denied any connection with the Gülen movement, Beehive principal Muhammet "Frank" Erdogan in Salt Lake City admitted such links in the case of his school. The Salt Lake Tribune quoted his admission that, along with him, "many of Beehive's teachers and founders also support Gülen's ideals." The paper also described how "Adam Kuntz, a first-year history teacher at Beehive, was fired [in spring 2009], he alleges, for taking academic freedom concerns to the state board. Earlier in the school year, Kuntz had a run-in with Erdogan over a lesson plan on World War II and the Holocaust. Erdogan wanted Kuntz to revise the plan and during a tape-recorded meeting, questioned conventional accounts of the genocide."

Kelly Wayment, a parent of three children in the school, was removed from his post on the Beehive administrative board after he emailed other parents about Gülen movement influence in the school. Wayment told the Salt Lake Tribune that, as in the Tucson case, teachers "tend to be from Turkey and central Asian republics living here on work visas."

Americans should ask both why and how the Islamist Gülen movement has managed to establish such a large presence for Turkish religious political indoctrination in publicly financed education — and should unite to oppose it.
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington, D.C.

Paparock 04-12-2010 02:41 PM

Islamists Respond to Terror Cases with Denial
Islamists Respond to Terror Cases with Denial
by Sid Shahid
As homegrown terrorism grabbed headlines at the end of 2009, Islamist pressure groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim American Society (MAS), and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) felt the need to look as if they were responding forcefully. However, all they offered was spin and denial of the very radicalism that they themselves have helped breed.

First we witnessed the typical smokescreen that attempts to paint Muslims as victims. For example, in a November 6 press release commenting on the Fort Hood massacre, Mahdi Bray of the MAS Freedom Foundation strongly condemned the actions of Major Nidal Hasan, but quickly segued into warnings about an anti-Muslim backlash: "Let us be cautious, however, in drawing conclusions based on the ethnicity of the perpetrator of this tragic incident. … The perpetuation of negativity in such instances often unwittingly serves as an equally unnecessary exacerbation of the atmosphere of hate, violence, and Islamophobia under which the Muslim community already exists."

Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director of CAIR, played a victim card of his own on November 15. Participating in a discussion on TV One's Washington Watch, Hooper asked, "Why can't the killer at Fort Hood just be a crazy guy? Don't take it out on American Muslims because you're upset about another issue." He then claimed that CAIR had received death threats since the shooting. "Are those terrorist threats or is it only a terrorist threat if a Muslim does it?" he added.

More obfuscation followed the terror-related arrests of five Virginia Muslim men in Pakistan, as self-appointed Islamic spokesmen could not bring themselves to acknowledge fully the roots of radicalization taking place among America's Muslims. For example, at a December 9 press conference about the detentions, Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR, did grant that a "problem" exists in the Muslim community, yet he remained in complete denial about its source: political Islam (Islamism). Particularly illuminating is Awad's statement that there are no "similarities or connection," ideological or otherwise, between the disappearance of the jihadist Somali youths from Minneapolis and the jihadist young men from Virginia. He was succeeded at the podium by MPAC's Haris Tarin, who did little more than pay lip service to the "problem" by calling for better Muslim community relations with law enforcement.

The Islamist stage show continued two days later. Speaking to reporters at the mosque that the young men attended, Mahdi Bray proclaimed: "We are determined not to let religious extremists exploit the vulnerability of our young children through slick propaganda on the Internet. We are sending a message loud and clear that those days are over when we don't respond. We are going to be active, proactive." However, Bray's denial — or intentional avoidance — of Islamism was most evident when, according to AFP, he "acknowledged that the emotions of young Muslims were stirred by 'injustices' they see unfolding in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Then, on December 17, barely more than a week after admitting to a vague radicalization "problem," CAIR opened up the victimology playbook once more with an email blast excerpting, among other things, a article from December 14 entitled "The Allegedly Growing Domestic Muslim Threat." The piece sarcastically minimizes the danger of radical Islam to the U.S. and instead pins the blame on American foreign policy in the Middle East.

As expected, none of these so-called leaders addressed Islamism as a real and thriving movement or recognized the fuel of anti-Americanism that perpetuates it. How could they? If they did, they would have to concede their own complicity in its spread. So they dissimulate.

Without addressing political Islam, anti-radicalization efforts like the one announced by CAIR at the December 9 press conference are mere public relations ploys. Worse, declaring that problems within Muslim-majority countries are the sole result of American policies is not only factually inaccurate, but dangerous. It should be no surprise that when such unqualified anti-Americanism is fomented by Islamists with deep pockets, some community members like Nidal Hasan crack under the pressure.

The contrast between the above groups and truly moderate Muslims was especially pronounced in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre. Moderates such as Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), were out front on the fact that Hasan's actions had been motivated by his Islamist ideology. Jasser and other leading anti-Islamists consistently were featured on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and elsewhere, calling Hasan what he is: a radical Islamist.

Real anti-radicalization efforts from the Muslim community require a balanced perspective that integrates our faith with our American citizenship. One can debate U.S. foreign policy, human rights abuses abroad, and democracy promotion without poisoning the minds of Muslims and creating a childish and artificial barrier that separates them from the Western world — thus forcing men like Nidal Hasan to choose between being a proud American and a proud Muslim.

Of course, CAIR, MAS, and MPAC are not likely to change. That is why the time has come for true American Muslims — along with politicians and the mainstream media — to stop promoting and legitimizing Islamist groups in the United States as "Muslim civil rights organizations." They are anything but.
Sid Shahid is the director of research and publications for the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD).

Paparock 04-12-2010 02:44 PM

NYT and WaPo: Muhammad Is the Prophet of God
NYT and WaPo: Muhammad Is the Prophet of God
by Johanna Markind

Is Muhammad more deserving of reverential treatment than Jesus? The New York Times seems to think so.

A Times article reporting on the collapse of Christian communities in the Middle East contains two references to Jesus. Not "Christ," which is a religious title, or "Jesus Christ," but simply "Jesus," who was (or may have been) a historical figure. The same is true of other Times stories and wire service articles published by the Times which no longer appear on its website (but still appear on other sites under different titles and are linked below). A December 21 story entitled "First Jesus-Era House Discovered in Nazareth" (AP byline) contains ten references to Jesus and none to Christ. Ditto another item, "Mass. School Denies Suspending Student for Drawing" (also AP), about a second grader who may have been suspended for drawing a figure of Jesus on the cross. Three references to Jesus, none to Christ.

A Washington Post article (AP byline) about the controversy surrounding Brit Hume's recent comments on Tiger Woods contains two references to Jesus and none to Christ. The same pattern has held true of other articles published by the Post, including "Vatican to Review Security After Papal Knockdown" (AP) and "Pilgrims Crowd Bethlehem on Warm Christmas Eve" (Reuters), which are no longer linked to the Post's website. The articles refer to Jesus, not to Christ or Jesus Christ.

The Times, the AP, and Reuters all have style manuals setting forth their policies about usage for proper names like "Jesus." Both the Times and Reuters manuals explicitly caution against using the term "Christ" when referring to Jesus because it is a theological term, "a title non-Christians would not give him," as Reuters' handbook says.

Similarly, the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage does not list "Prophet Muhammad" as an acceptable usage. It says only: "Muhammad. Use this spelling for the name of the prophet of the Muslim religion." Both Reuters and the AP Stylebook identify Muhammad as "Prophet," but neither explicitly states whether "Prophet Muhammad" is a preferred, disfavored, or neutral usage.

The Times confirmed that its above-cited styles are current, but did not respond to an inquiry about its actual practice. The Washington Post, AP, and Reuters did not respond at all to inquiries for this article.

If the New York Times views Jesus as "undisputed and therefore preferred," its current practice regarding Muhammad does not meet the same standard. As a historical personage, Muhammad is, well, at least as "undisputed" as Jesus. Thus his name alone should presumably be preferred. But in fact the paper regularly refers to Muhammad by his religious title, "Prophet Muhammad."

This is not the exception, but it appears to be the rule in major media today, including:
  • Recent Times stories about Iran and Iraq ("Prophet Muhammad" identified as the grandfather of Imam Hussein, whose death is commemorated on the Shiite holy day of Ashura).
  • A Washington Post article about political unrest in Iran during Ashura (two references to Muhammad, the first as the "prophet Muhammad").
In short, the foundational figure of Islam is treated with a reverence not meted out to the foundational figure of Christianity or other faiths like Judaism. Newspaper references to Moses do not identify him by titles such as "Prophet" or "Rabbeinu," "our teacher," the traditional Jewish honorific applied to him. There could be several reasons for this. Editors may be attempting to educate a non-Muslim readership or to placate Muslim readers and/or reporters.

Regardless, it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to pressures being felt in America and other Western countries to create exceptions to societal norms in favor of Islamic ones. For example, Ontario and Great Britain provide welfare benefits to multiple wives. Public colleges and private colleges have used their resources to provide Muslim prayer facilities. Other efforts have thus far been less successful, like allowing Muslim women to veil themselves in driver's license photos, enabling Muslim cabbies to refuse blind passengers accompanied by guide dogs, or refusing medical treatment to or from those not conforming to Muslim modesty strictures.

Free expression has been the greatest victim so far. For example, hate speech laws have been used to penalize critics of Islam through the filing of frivolous "defamation" lawsuits against them. Even more worrisome is the self-censorship that has taken root in American media and publishers. Few prominent newspapers published Kurt Westergaard's Muhammad cartoon. Yale University Press' refusal to publish the cartoons in a book about the controversy is clearer evidence yet that the threat of physical violence, like the attempt to kill Westergaard, and the threat of financially draining lawsuits have had a chilling effect on publications about Islamic extremism.

Referring to Muhammad by his religious title is a related development, but it is also a step beyond. It is not self-censorship, which is the failure to publish material out of deference or fear. Rather, it flirts with propaganda. The media are affirmatively recognizing Muhammad by his religious title, almost endorsing his prophethood — and proclaiming Muhammad's prophethood is half of the Muslim credo — while demoting or devaluing other religions whose foundational figures are not treated with the same respect.

The cumulative end result of this campaign, if it is successful, is recreating American society in the image of Islam, where Islam and Muslims have an elevated status above other religions and their adherents. However, Americans may remain blithely ignorant about these developments as they are happening, because the media will not report them.

Paparock 04-12-2010 02:48 PM

Niqab, the Pseudo-Islamic Face-Veil
Niqab, the Pseudo-Islamic Face-Veil
by Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

Countries from Italy to Sweden are debating the right of women to wear the niqab. Canada is the latest country to enter the fray, with the Muslim Canadian Congress desiring to ban it. Is such a ban possible in the U.S., where its prevalence is evident in certain urban centers, like Philadelphia?

Muslim women's wearing of niqab, the veil covering everything but the eyes, and, by extension, the face-concealing mesh that is combined with a long garment to form the burqa in South Asia, has been introduced into the West as a purported religious obligation, and therefore, is put forward by ideological Islamists as a prospective civil right.

Niqab has become a matter of controversy in almost every Western country, most recently when the French government opened an inquiry into its prohibition – with the support, perhaps counter-intuitive, of that country's leading Muslim figure, Dr. Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris. France had already banned all forms of religious dress and symbolism from its state schools. In 2008, Dutch State Secretary for Education Ronald Plasterk, representing the immigrant-friendly Labor Party, called for banning niqab, as well as the burqa and abaya, from the country's primary and secondary schools, both for pupils and for visiting mothers.

The burqa, with its niqab-like eyescreen, is barred from British and some Belgian public schools. Earlier controversies include Quebec's 2007 decision that women must remove niqab if they vote, and a demand in 2006 by British Labour politician Jack Straw that women take off niqab before visiting his constituency office.

The U.S. has seen a number of bizarre attempts to establish niqab as a right. In 2001, Sultaana Freeman obtained a Florida driver's license while wearing niqab, but the license was then canceled.

Niqab is not the same as other practices often referred to generally as "veils" or "veiling" like the:
  • hijab, or head-covering,
  • the abaya, a loose full-body covering imposed on women in Saudi Arabia , although it is required in that kingdom that it be supplemented by niqab,
  • the chador, an Iranian cloak,
  • or jilbab, a loose garment covering the body except for the head, face, and hands.
Distinctions between these and various Western styles for women are difficult to make, especially in a civil-liberties environment. Head scarves and long coats or cloaks are worn by many women in cultures around the world, non-Muslim as well as Muslim. But since a hijab or head-covering may resemble a hat, it may be prohibited for all women in certain settings. Also in 2007, a Georgia judge barred a Muslim woman from entering court unless she removed her hijab, just as men and women are required to take off hats and caps when a judge is present. The radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) unsuccessfully challenged the judge's decision on the false claim of religious freedom. But religious claims do not override judicial practice, at least in the U.S., any more than they would justify carrying a driver's license that conceals the bearer's identity.

Niqab as a security problem encourages non-Muslim suspicion of Muslims, since it encourages Muslims toward separatism from their non-Muslim neighbors. And the security issue is real. Male terrorists in such varied countries as Pakistan, Britain, Afghanistan, and Israel have donned female coverings in attempting to escape police. Ordinary criminals have put on niqab as a disguise while committing robberies in the U.S., Britain, Canada, India, and Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Niqab is not Islamic. Covering of the face by women is nowhere mentioned in Qur'an, and the opinions of Islamic legal scholars on it are not unanimous. The Hanafi school of Islamic law, which is most widespread among Muslims, specifically rules out face covering, on the basis of women's needs while dealing normally with men, in commerce and elsewhere. In traditional Islam, men are called on to act modestly, and women are not ordered to disfigure and subordinate themselves by masking their features. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said that women making the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca should not cover their faces or wear gloves, although in their typically perverse manner, Saudi Wahhabi clerics now seek to impose it upon them even then.

Millions of Muslim women around the world do not wear so-called Islamic dress, but have retained local customary garments, which do not distort their form or personality. Many have adopted the same fashions as Western or Far-Eastern women. Women in Hejaz, the Western Arabian region in which the holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located, did not, in the past, cover their faces, and increasingly protest against the imposition of this practice.

The radicals who promote niqab try to pretend that a woman becomes a "better Muslim" by covering her face. This concept is no more Islamic than niqab itself. In traditional Islam, division of Muslims between the good and the bad, aside from those who have committed terrorist or criminal acts, will be decided by God, not by men or women.

According to established Islamic guidance, Muslims who migrate to non-Muslim societies are required to accept and obey the laws and customs of the countries to which they move. Attempts to introduce niqab into Western countries represent an obvious violation of this principle.
Western nations have developed a doctrine of "reasonable accommodation" of religious beliefs and practices. But acceptance of niqab in the West would embody "unreasonable accommodation."

Appeals for an immediate ban on niqab or face-coverings in Western countries are, in the view of many moderate Muslims, correct. To rid the Muslim world of niqab will require a sustained debate and social development in each country where it is presently found, based on a pluralistic discussion leading to its recognition as a non-Islamic, and dehumanizing, practice.
Author Irfan Al-Alawi is international director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism

Paparock 04-12-2010 08:40 PM

Court ruling reveals ties between Ohio jihadist, al-Qaeda
Court ruling reveals ties between Ohio jihadist, al-Qaeda
Abdulmalek Kenyatta (aka Christopher Paul) Update: Confirmation of exactly how well connected Paul was within al-Qaeda. "Ohio terrorist ties to al-Qaida operative revealed," by Andrew Welsh-Huggins for the Associated Press, April 12:
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A court ruling has revealed that a convicted Ohio terrorist had ties to an al-Qaida suspect who met with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robertson says Christopher Paul of suburban Columbus met with Guantanamo Bay detainee Mohamedou Ould Salahi in Afghanistan and later in Germany.
The ruling supported Robertson's order to release Salahi and says Salahi sent Paul a fax in 1997 asking where to send would-be jihadists, or holy warriors.
The ruling says Salahi referred to Paul as a man of great respect in al-Qaida.
Paul was sentenced to 20 years in prison last year after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction in terrorist attacks.

Paparock 04-13-2010 12:58 PM

Court ruling reveals ties between Ohio jihadist, al-Qaeda
Court ruling reveals ties between Ohio jihadist, al-Qaeda
Abdulmalek Kenyatta (aka Christopher Paul) Update: Confirmation of exactly how well connected Paul was within al-Qaeda. "Ohio terrorist ties to al-Qaida operative revealed," by Andrew Welsh-Huggins for the Associated Press, April 12:
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A court ruling has revealed that a convicted Ohio terrorist had ties to an al-Qaida suspect who met with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robertson says Christopher Paul of suburban Columbus met with Guantanamo Bay detainee Mohamedou Ould Salahi in Afghanistan and later in Germany.
The ruling supported Robertson's order to release Salahi and says Salahi sent Paul a fax in 1997 asking where to send would-be jihadists, or holy warriors.
The ruling says Salahi referred to Paul as a man of great respect in al-Qaida.
Paul was sentenced to 20 years in prison last year after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction in terrorist attacks.

Paparock 04-13-2010 01:04 PM

A New American Jihadi in Afghanistan, Sayfullah Al-Amriki, Appears in Video

April 12, 2010
Special Dispatch No.2905

A New American Jihadi in Afghanistan, Sayfullah Al-Amriki, Appears in Video

A new American jihadi in Afghanistan, Sayfullah Al-Amriki, has appeared in a video for the first time.

He is shown in a new "German Taliban" video purportedly documenting a military operation against an Afghan army base in Paktika province.

In the video, Sayfullah (his name means "sword of Allah") recites a Quranic verse in Arabic, and says that the jihad fighters will be victorious because they are fighting for Allah. He also calls on others to emigrate to the jihad in Afghanistan.

Paparock 04-13-2010 01:37 PM

Feds: 4 men charged in 2nd Hezbollah weapons ring
Feds: 4 men charged in 2nd Hezbollah weapons ring
Three Lebanese nationals and one American resident were charged today with attempting to obtain 1,200 M-4 military assault weapons for Hezbollah, the second set of such charges in as many days generated in Philadelphia.

U.S. Attorney Michael L. Levy declined to say if the government informer who penetrated the alleged smuggling ring was the same person cited in yesterday's allegations that a man connected to Hezbollah tried to obtain Stinger anti-aircraft missiles for Hezbollah, as well as M4s.

But the individuals charged are not the same.

"We are dealing with two different groups trying to buy M4s," he said.
Three of the four men charged today are still in Lebanon. A fourth was identified as Moussa Ali Hamdan of Brooklyn, N.Y.

It could not be immediately discovered if Hamdan was in custody.

The other six men charged today allegedly participated in the purchase and transportation of stolen cell phones, laptops, computer games and automobiles. They are from Brooklyn, Staten Island, Michigan, and Plainsboro, N.J., and do not face charges that they acted to support Hezbollah.

Paparock 04-14-2010 03:19 PM

Plane Bomber's Inclination to Kill Increased with Prayer, Devotion
Plane Bomber's Inclination to Kill Increased with Prayer, Devotion

SANAA - A young Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a U.S. plane on Christmas Day was not deeply religious when he arrived in Yemen in 2004 butevolved into a devoted follower of Islam, a former teacher said.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, stayed in Yemen for a year between 2004 to 2005, before returning for another stay from Aug. 4 to Sept. 21 of last year, Yemeni officials have said.

A teacher at the Sana Institute for the Arabic Language, who taught Abdulmutallab during his time in Yemen, said he was "closer to being secular" when he first arrived in the country.

"But during his visit last year, he was more committed to praying and Islam," the teacher said.

A fellow student who holds U.S. citizenship said Abdulmutallab had not exhibited any violent tendencies and a community leader in the neighbourhood where the institute is located said he had been very friendly to cleaning staff, even offering them chocolates.

"Nobody expected he would harm anyone," the student said.

Abdulmutallab was taken into custody after being overpowered by passengers and crew as the U.S. passenger jet approached Detroit on Christmas Day after taking off from Amsterdam....

Read the rest here>

Paparock 04-14-2010 03:24 PM

Bronx Synagogue Bomb Plotter Hoped to Kill Jews
Bronx Synagogue Bomb Plotter Hoped to Kill Jews

Bomb Suspect Wanted To Kill 10 'Yahudis'

Bronx, NY - The lead terror suspect in last year's alleged plot to bomb synagogues in the Bronx claimed he wanted to shoot President Bush "700 times" and repeatedly called Osama Bin Laden "my brother," according to transcripts of FBI recordings filed in federal court Tuesday. Full article

Bronx, NY - The lead terror suspect in last year's alleged plot to bomb synagogues in the Bronx claimed he wanted to shoot President Bush "700 times" and repeatedly called Osama Bin Laden "my brother," according to transcripts of FBI recordings filed in federal court Tuesday.

Federal prosecutors said James Cromitie approached the FBI informant claiming "I want to do something to America" adding "With no hesitation I will kill 10 Yahudis [Jews], and I'll have to think 20,000 times before I kill one Muslim. You understand?"

Cromitie was charged last May with recruiting three others to try to carry out attacks on Jewish temples in the Riverdale section of the Bronx as well as plotting to shoot down airplanes at Stewart Air base in Newburgh.

The four men have pleaded not guilty and defense lawyers have claimed the group was set up by an FBI informant. The defense last month asked a federal judge to dismiss the charges alleging misconduct by the informant and his government handlers.

Prosecutors filed their response to the defense motion stating Cromitie along with suspects David Williams, Onta Williams and LaGueerre Payen acted on their own. "These four defendants actually showed up and placed what they believed to be Improvised Explosive Devices in front of a synagogue and a Jewish Community Center," prosecutors said.

Investigators said the three other suspects were not known to the FBI informant when Cromitie allegedly recruited them for the plot. Prosecutors called Cromitie a "hate-filled, virulent anti-Semite who wanted to commit attacks against Jews and the United States ..." who claimed it was "for a cause, not just because."

NBCNewYork broke the story of the alleged plot back on May 19. The suspects are charged with conspiracy to use a weapon on mass destruction, conspiracy to kill U.S. military officers and conspiracy to acquire anti-aircraft missiles.

Investigators said Cromitie first met the informant on June 13, 2008 and spoke of his family in Afghanistan. Cromitie allegedly said he wanted to strike at the U.S. because of American military involvement there.

"If the Muslims was to want the United States down, they can do it. With the regular Muslims here, all somebody has to do is give a good Fatwa [religious edict] to the brothers and make sure that they understand. They are taking down our Islamic countries ... So, we start taking something down here" he said according to a wiretap transcript.

Last month, defense lawyers claimed the FBI informant had offered $250,000 to Cromitie to help in the plot. Court papers identified the informant as Shaheed Hussain who had claimed to be a member of a terror group from Pakistan. If not for the offer of cash, defense lawyers claim the men never would have gotten caught in the FBI's sting.

A spokesman for U.S. attorney Preet Bharara declined to comment on the court filings. Cromitie's lawyer Vincent Brecetti did not immediately return a call.

Paparock 04-15-2010 02:00 PM

Separating Islam From Terrorism
Separating Islam From Terrorism
Another empty statement of Islamic moderation
by Robert Spencer
Barack Obama has removed all mention of Islam from the National Security Strategy document, which during the Bush Administration said: “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” Obama apparently agrees with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who said Monday: “Islam and terrorism cannot be mentioned together, because they are contradictory to each other.”

Erdogan, incidentally, also famously said this about “moderate Islam”: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” And that statement itself demonstrates one of the key fallacies of the Obama Administration’s stance that Islam has nothing to do with, uh, Islamic terrorism.

Now that the idea that Islam and terrorism have anything to do with one another has been relegated to the dustbin of history, it’s worth asking why anyone got this idea in the first place. Was it sheer bigotry? Racism? Let’s see. Could it have been from Osama bin Laden, who once praised Allah for the Qur’an’s “Verse of the Sword” (9:5), which instructs Muslims to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”? Or maybe it was from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who once thundered: “Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!…There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Maybe it was from the British Muslim Omar Brooks, who said in 2005 that it was imperative for Muslims to “instill terror into the hearts of the kuffar” and added: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.” Or maybe it was from the Qur’an itself, which tells Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60). Maybe it was from the perpetrators of the 15,000-plus terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11.

But a recent conference of Islamic scholars in Mardin, Turkey, has given apparent intellectual heft to the Obama/Erdogan contention. Discussing a fourteenth-century fatwa by the Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya, a favorite of contemporary Islamic jihadists, the scholars declared: “anyone who seeks support from this fatwa for killing Muslims or non-Muslims has erred in his interpretation and has misapplied the revealed texts.”

That sounds great. It is unequivocal. But what it is unequivocal about is the use of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa to justify killing Muslims or non-Muslims. It unequivocally declares that illegitimate. It does not declare illegitimate the killing of Muslims or non-Muslims itself.

I am not saying that these scholars did not mean to condemn the killing of Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of Islam. Maybe they did. But they did not do so by condemning the use of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa, for there are plenty of other Islamic sources that justify the killing of unbelievers.
The scholars issued what they called the “New Mardin Declaration,” saying: “Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa concerning Mardin can under no circumstances be appropriated and used as evidence for leveling the charge of kufr (unbelief) against fellow Muslims, waging revolt against rulers, deeming their lives and property freely accessible to Muslims, terrorizing those who enjoy safety and security, acting treacherously towards those who live (in harmony) with fellow Muslims or with whom fellow Muslims live (in harmony) via the bond of citizenship and peace.”
Here again, the focus is very narrow: the New Mardin Declaration seems to discuss only Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa, not the larger question of the Islamic justification for these things outside of that fatwa. But in any case, the part of the Declaration quoted above offers no comfort to unbelievers concerned about being targeted by jihadists. It is only concerned that Muslims do not declare other Muslims to be unbelievers — which is indeed a favorite practice of Salafis in general — and that they do not revolt against rulers (which is probably a slap to Al-Qaeda for waging jihad against the House of Saud, etc.).

It does also rule out “acting treacherously towards those who live (in harmony) with fellow Muslims or with whom fellow Muslims live (in harmony) via the bond of citizenship and peace,” but leaves unclear what exactly might constitute this treachery. This may forbid Muslims in West to commit violent jihad attacks against non-Muslims in their adoptive countries, but it remains unclear whether Muslims in Western countries would be “acting treacherously” by working in non-violent ways to impose elements of Sharia. Would CAIR’s efforts to smear and defame anti-jihadists, and intimidate Americans into being afraid to report suspicious activity by Muslims, constitute “acting treacherously”? Would efforts to secure special privileges for Muslims in workplaces, schools, and public places like airports constitute “acting treacherously”?

The New Declaration said that the distinction in Islamic theology between the dar al-harb, the house of war, and the dar al-Islam, house of Islam, as outmoded, “based on ijtihad (juristic reasoning) that was necessitated by the circumstances of the Muslim world, then and the nature of the international relations prevalent at that time.” The Declaration said that in the modern age, circumstances “had changed with international treaties and nation states.”

That’s reasonable, but it raises another question: if circumstances change again, might all this “reform” be out the window? Is the New Mardin Declaration a matter of an evolved understanding of core principles — i.e., a genuine reform — or is it simply a temporary expedient?

On jihad, the New Declaration stated: “Muslim scholars, throughout the ages, have always stressed and emphasized that the jihad that is considered the pinnacle of the religion of Islam, is not of one type, but of many, and actually fighting in the Path of God is only one type. The validation, authorization, and implementation of this particular type of Jihad is sanctioned by the Shariah to only those who lead the community (actual heads of states).

Great. There are many types of jihad. But there is no rejection of the supremacist character of jihad — i.e., its goal to impose Sharia upon non-Muslims polities. All this is saying is that there are many ways to do that. And that “this particular type of Jihad” — i.e., not all types — is the province of the state to sanction. Thus Osama bin Laden, who couches his jihad as defensive, which he must do since he recognizes that the office of caliph, the only person authorized in Sunni Islam to declare offensive jihad, is vacant, would find nothing in the New Mardin Declaration that would stop him. Defensive jihad in traditional Islamic theology does not need the sanction of the state, but becomes the obligation of every individual Muslim as soon as an Islamic land is attacked.

And the New Mardin Declaration goes on to say just that:
This is because such a decision of war is a political decision with major repercussions and consequences. Hence, it is not for a Muslim individual or Muslim group to announce and declare war, or engage in combative jihad, whimsically and on their own. This restriction is vital for preventing much evil from occurring, and for truly upholding Islamic religious texts relevant to this matter.
The basis of the legitimacy of jihad is that it is either to repel/resist aggression: “Fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah likes not the transgressors.” (Qur’an, 2:190), or to aid those who are weak and oppressed: “And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?” (Qur’an, 4:75), or in defense of the freedom of worshiping: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; – and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid.” (Qur’an, 22:39). It is not legitimate to declare war because of differences in religion, or in search of spoils of war.”
Osama has quoted Qur’an 22:39 in his communiques. He is waging defensive jihad, not “war because of differences in religion, or in search of spoils of war.” The problem is that with unbelief itself constituting aggression for some Islamic authorities, and given the Qur’anic command to fight unbelievers until “religion is all for Allah” (8:39), it is cold comfort to unbelievers, and no restraint for jihadists, to remind them that they should only be fighting aggression.

There is here no simple and straightforward declaration that Muslims should not fight non-Muslims and attempt to subjugate them under Sharia. And that is still the problem. Obama and Erdogan and the rest are demanding that Islam be separated from terrorism, and yet the conceptual apparatus establishing a peaceful Islam has never been presented. We are all supposed to take it on faith. But the stakes are too high for that.

Paparock 04-15-2010 03:01 PM

FBI Report:

Who was it that said terrorism has no religion? Oh that’s right, the Terrorist Front Group CAIR. Since BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA has been in office, terrorism-related cases have risen significantly in America and they all have one thing in common: ISLAM

Here are some of the FBI’S top terror cases of 2009:

Jihadists of Georgia:With little more than an Internet connection and the radicalizing influences of overseas terrorists, two middle-class young men in Atlanta went from rhetoric to plotting jihad.Details

David Coleman Headley:The U.S. citizen was arrested in October for planning terrorist attacks against a Danish newspaper and two of its employees. New charges this month allege he took part in the conspiracy surrounding the 2008 Mumbai attacks.Details

Somalia:In February, we reported that young men from Minneapolis were traveling to Somalia to join extremists fighting for control of the country. One of those men became who we believe was the first U.S. citizen to carry out a terrorist suicide bombing after launching an attack in Somalia. By November, 14 defendants were charged with recruiting people from the U.S. to train or fight on behalf of extremist groups in Somalia.Details

Najibullah Zazi:The 24-year-old Colorado resident was arrested in September, along with his father and another man, for conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. citizens. Zazi traveled to New York City on September 10, 2009 “in furtherance of his criminal plans,” according to the Department of Justice.Details

Attempted bombing of federal building:In September, a U.S. citizen was arrested in connection with a plot to detonate a vehicle bomb at the federal building in Springfield, Illinois.Details

Attempted skyscraper bombing:Also in September, a 19-year-old Jordanian citizen who espoused violent jihad was arrested for attempting to blow up a 60-story glass office tower in Dallas, Texas.Details

North Carolina takedown:Seven men, including a father and two sons, were charged with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and to wage jihad overseas. The heavily armed group trained in the U.S., raised money to support their training, and recruited and radicalized others.Details

Synagogue plot:In May, four people were arrested outside a New York synagogue and charged with planning to blow up Jewish targets and shoot down military planes.Details

Liberty City Six:In May, a Miami jury convicted five men of providing material support to al Qaeda and planning attacks on U.S. targets, including the Sears Tower in Chicago.Details

Ali al-Marri:In May, the al Qaeda “sleeper” operative working in the U.S. pled guilty to charges relating to his role in the 9/11 attacks. Details FBI via Religion of Peace

Paparock 04-16-2010 02:08 PM

"Wrist slap for Zazi's 'tip' imam: 4 days in bomb case,"
"Wrist slap for Zazi's 'tip' imam: 4 days in bomb case"

At least he is being deported. An update on this story. "Wrist slap for Zazi's 'tip' imam: 4 days in bomb case," by Janon Fisher for the New York Post, April 16:
The Queens imam who lied to the FBI about tipping off subway suicide-bomb plotters was given a wrist slap yesterday by a Brooklyn federal judge who sentenced him to the four days he's already served in jail.

Ahmad Wais Afzali, 38, had been facing six months in the clink after pleading guilty to lying to authorities about telling convicted suicide subway bomb plotter Najibullah Zazi that federal agents were following him.

But despite his break, he will have to leave the country in 90 days or be deported to his native Afghanistan under the plea agreement.

Zazi, who is also from Afghanistan and who the feds say had three co-conspirators, planned to murder hundreds of New Yorkers by detonating homemade backpack bombs in the Manhattan subways during rush hour.

Afzali, who worked as an informant for the NYPD, told Zazi that his phones were tapped, but warned him not to get involved in "nonsense" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The al Qaeda-trained bomb plotter aborted his plan, threw away his bomb material and fled the city after Afzali spilled the news that the law was onto him....

Under the plea negotiations with the feds, Afzali will have to leave the United States and never return. The imam, who also runs a successful funeral parlor in Queens, will have to leave behind his wife, elderly parents and his children.

"I'm going to go back to my house, visit my family and friends, give them a big hug and start planning for my long journey ahead," he told reporters outside the courthouse.

Afzali said he does not expect to return to Afghanistan, which he left as a child.

"I'm going to start shopping around [for a place to live]. I'm sure some good country will host me. That shouldn't be a problem," he said.
Why? What's wrong with Afghanistan? It's essentially a Sharia state, where the "best of people" (Qur'an 3:110) rule. What's the problem?

Paparock 04-16-2010 02:11 PM

FBI chief warns about "extremists" of some kind posing a threat for some reason
FBI chief warns about "extremists" of some kind posing a threat for some reason

But of course he will not identify who exactly they are, what they're extreme in, or why they are fighting. "Home-grown, solo terrorists as bad as Al-Qaeda: FBI chief," from AFP, April 15:
Al-Qaeda still aims to strike inside the United States but home-grown or unaffiliated extremists now "pose an equally serious threat," FBI chief Robert Mueller warned US lawmakers Thursday.
Home-grown by whom? Unaffiliated with what? Extreme in what?
"Al Qaeda and its affiliates are still committed to striking us in the United States," Mueller told a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, pointing to plots to bomb New York City subways and the failed Christmas airline attack.

"Home-grown and lone-wolf extremists pose an equally serious threat," the Federal Bureau of Investigation director said, citing the shootings at the sprawling Fort Hood army base in Texas.

Experts have warned that a "lone wolf" -- an extremist acting alone, without connections to an established network like Al-Qaeda -- may be the most difficult threat for authorities to thwart....
And that is partly because Mueller and other authorities refuse to name who they are or investigate what motivates them, which is an essential step toward figuring out how they can be stopped.

Paparock 04-16-2010 03:00 PM

Video Shows Young Children Taught to Kill 'Infidels'
Video Shows Young Children Taught to Kill 'Infidels'

Led By Al-Shabab; Canadian among those leaders seen on video

"Do you know who I will kill with this gun?" a little boy says into the video camera, waving his toy pistol.

"Who will you kill with this gun?" the cameraman asks.

"The infidels."

The scene appears in a new video by the al-Qaeda-linked Al-Shabab that shows the Somali militant group indoctrinating children, some of whom appear to be toddlers.

Among those seen in the 28-minute video urging the children to fight and become "martyrs" is a former Toronto resident, Omar Hammami, alias Abu Mansour the American.

The video, distributed on the Internet this week by Al-Shabab's propaganda arm, shows a "children's fair" hosted by Al-Shabab leaders. The boys and girls, identified as the children of "martyrs," are given balloons and snacks and rewarded with toy guns for correctly identifying the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, from a picture.

"What brought us together today is the blood of the martyrs," Mr. Hammami tells the children, according to a translation by the SITE Intelligence Group. "So on the necks of the attendants today rests the responsibility of blood. Each of us should assume a part of this responsibility.

"As men, we have to continue the fighting started by those heroes. We have to abide by the principles for which those heroes were martyred. They honoured the responsibility on them."

Mr. Hammami then urges their mothers, who appear to be seated at the back of the room, to encourage the children to "learn military sciences" and tells the kids they "have to work hard and try to be like their hero fathers who were martyred in this path."

The children are later shown holding their plastic guns while waving black Al-Shabab flags in a pose reminiscent of terrorist videos. One child crawls prone on the floor with his rifle while another grimaces and aims his toy AK-47 at the camera.

"We are horrified by these images and by the exploitation of these very young Somali children by senior leaders of the Al-Shabab terrorist group," said Ahmed Hussen, president of the Canadian Somali Congress.

"The central role played by Omar Hammami in the recruitment of these very young children to Al-Shabab proves to us that foreign extremists will stop at nothing to bring further misery to Somalia," he said.

"We hope that this video will unmask the true nature of the Al-Shabab and make Somalis everywhere realize the fact that this group has never cared about the welfare of Somalis despite its rhetoric of doing so."

Al-Shabab is a Taliban-like armed extremist group that is fighting to overthrow Somalia's United Nations-backed government. It is notorious for its suicide bombings and assassinations of government officials, activists and journalists.

Ottawa outlawed Al-Shabab last month due to concerns it was attempting to radicalize and recruit young Somali Canadians. Federal security officials are investigating six Toronto youths who allegedly joined Al-Shabab last year. One of them, Mohamed Elmi Ibrahim, a University of Toronto student, has reportedly died.

Al-Shabab has attracted recruits from Canada, Europe, Australia and the United States. Mr. Hammami is an Alabama-born American Muslim who moved to Toronto in 2005 and married a Canadian Somali. The following year, he travelled to Somalia to join Al-Shabab.

In its annual report to Parliament on Wednesday, Canada's intelligence service described Somalia as a "magnet for international terrorists" who have converged in the African nation to create a Taliban-like state.

It also warned that Canadians who travel there to participate in the conflict "may be drawn into global jihad circles, where they are subsequently recruited to carry out attacks against perceived enemies of Islam."

The RCMP and FBI have said they are concerned that Canadian and U.S. recruits could return from Al-Shabab's camps to conduct terrorist attacks in North America. The CSIS report called the Somali conflict "a direct threat to Canadian and international security."

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum