Posts Tagged: Terrorism


10
Oct 10

ABC News promotes U.S. jihadists as America’s first line of defense against terrorism

It’s hard to believe even they could be this clueless, but here you are. “ABC News Promotes Revolution Muslim as America’s First Line of Defense against Terrorism,” from Answering Muslims, October 9 (thanks to Joseph):

ABC News recently did a 20/20 special titled “Islam: Questions and Answers,” with Diane Sawyer, Bill Weir, and Lama Hasan. The program drew attention to moderate Muslims who will serve as America’s “first line of defense” against terrorism. Unfortunately, one of the moderate Muslims presented by ABC isn’t so moderate.

Indeed.

Jihad Watch


8
Oct 10

Eboo Patel in Washington Posts forgets about jihad terrorism, blames “fear of Muslims” on antijihadists

Eboo Patel has a used car to sell you. “Nine years after 9/11, a debate about Islam,” by Eboo Patel in the Washington Post, October 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

How is it that fear of Muslims in America is actually higher nine years post 9/11? Watching Christiane Amanpour’s special on Islam Sunday provides plenty of clues.

Patel, you see, wants to fool his eminently foolable Washington Post readers into thinking that If there is any actual suspicion of or negative feelings toward Muslims in the United States, it is the fault of people like Franklin Graham and me. He would prefer that you not think about Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and murdered another in a jihad shooting outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark.; Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist; Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden on 9/11; the London jihad bombers of July 7, 2005; and so many others.

The most striking voices in the debate were Amjad Choudry [sic! Patel is referring to Britain-based jihadist Anjem Choudary] and Reverend Franklin Graham. Choudry wore a regulation size beard, looked menacingly at the television camera and declared that the flag of Islam will one day fly over the White House. He knew full well that he was playing the scary Muslim figure from central casting. His message: Islam requires me to dominate you.

“He knew full well that he was playing the scary Muslim figure from central casting.”

Franklin Graham talked about church-burnings in the Sudan, the dangers of Sharia law, and the purpose of mosques as vehicles of conversion and domination. In other words, he agreed with Amjad [that is, Anjem]: Islam requires Muslims to dominate others.

Patel is here attempting a sleight-of-hand: Graham discussed church burnings in the Sudan, Sharia’s oppressive features, and mosques as vehicles of conversion and domination. See? — says Patel — he’s just like Anjem Choudary (although Patel does manage to spell Graham’s name correctly, so at least in that they differ). He doesn’t mention, of course, and apparently hopes that you won’t bring to mind the fact that it wasn’t Franklin Graham or Anjem Choudary who burned churches in the Sudan. It wasn’t Franklin Graham who used mosques to preach hatred; to spread exhortations to terrorist activity; to house a bomb factory; to store weapons; to disseminate messages from bin Laden; to demand (in the United States) that non-Muslims conform to Islamic dietary restrictions; to fire on American troops; to fire upon Indian troops; or to train jihadists.

When that kind of thing is known to have gone on in mosques, and when Muslims implementing Sharia in Saudi Arabia and Iran have victimized non-Muslims and women, people aren’t thinking that “Islam requires Muslims to dominate others” because Franklin Graham or Anjem Choudary told them so; they can see with their own eyes. And no amount of smoke blown into those eyes by Eboo Patel and his ilk can ultimately obscure the truth.

There are Muslims who go on television representing Islam and non-Muslims who go on television representing “Why you should fear Islam” and they are saying the same scary things. Is it any wonder that many Americans, whose first conscious experience with Islam was 9/11, are thinking: “I’m scared of these people.”

The idea that people saying “scary things” on television makes Americans “scared” of “these people” is as ridiculous as it is condescending. Americans are not that stupid, Mr. Patel. Manipulative talking heads, Muslim or non-Muslim, are not the problem in this: Nidal Hasan and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Faisal Shahzad and innumerable others are. But for Eboo Patel to face that, he would have to face up to the reality of the Islamic texts and teachings that inspired those jihadis. And that is a reality that he seems determined to obscure.

What about the moderate Muslims?

Daisy Khan, leader of a group called the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), explained that she was moved by the events of 9/11 to leave her corporate career to start an institution to grow the moderate voice in Islam. She has led Muslim youth and women’s events all over the world. One of the “fear Islam” panel members was unimpressed. “How do we know you are not a secret radical?” he asked.

A blunt but apposite question, given Daisy Khan’s dishonesty about whether or not this “community center” would be a mosque — she has said so in the past in my presence, but has now adopted the line that it is not a mosque, with no explanation for or acknowledgment of the change. Moreover, her husband, the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an open proponent of Sharia, and calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech in his book What’s Right with Islam. These things should cause concern for free people. And that Patel would hold the likes of Daisy Khan up as an example of a moderate Muslim doesn’t speak well of him, either.

The imam of a Muslim community in Murfreesboro, TN pointed out that Muslims had been a visible part of Murfreesboro for 30 years and not one member of the community had been involved in a single crime in that time. Recently, the community’s mosque construction site had experienced vandalism and arson, likely because of the fear of Islam cutting through the culture. Robert Spencer’s response: Muslims have a pattern of fabricating such things, and perhaps the imam was making this up as well.

Do Muslims fake hate crimes, or is this just an invention of that greasy Islamophobe Spencer? From “CAIR’s Hate Crimes Nonsense” by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha:

  • CAIR cites the July 9, 2004 case of apparent arson at a Muslim-owned grocery store in Everett, Washington. But investigators quickly determined that Mirza Akram, the store’s operator, staged the arson to avoid meeting his scheduled payments and to collect on an insurance policy. Although Akram’s antics were long ago exposed as a fraud, CAIR continues to list this case as an anti-Muslim hate crime.

  • CAIR also states that “a Muslim-owned market was burned down in Texas” on August 6, 2004. But already a month later, the owner was arrested for having set fire to his own business. Why does CAIR include this incident in its report?

  • CAIR lists the March 2005 lawsuit filed by the Salmi family for the firebombing of their family van as one example of a hate crime report it received in 2004. However, the crime named in the lawsuit occurred in March 2003, was already reported by CAIR in 2003, and should not have been tabulated again in the 2004 report.

  • CAIR reports that “a home-made bomb exploded outside of the Champions Mosque in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas,” staking its claim on eyewitness reports that on July 4, 2004, “two white males” were seen placing the bomb. We inquired about the incident and found that Spring’s sheriff department could not locate any police files about an explosion. Further inquiries to the mosque and an e-mail to CAIR both went unanswered. There is scant evidence that any crime even occurred.

  • CAIR notes that “investigators in Massachusetts are still investigating a potential hate-motivated arson against the Al-Baqi Islamic Center in Springfield.” However the case was long ago ruled a simple robbery, news that even CAIR’s own website has posted. The Associated Press reported on January 21, 2005, that prosecutors determined the fire was set by teen-age boys “who broke into the Al-Baqi mosque to steal money and candy, then set the fire to cover their tracks.” The boys, they clarified, “weren’t motivated by hatred toward Muslims.”

  • CAIR describes what happened to a Muslim family in Tucson, Arizona: “bullet shots pierced their home as they ate dinner in October 2004″ and two months later their truck was smashed and vandalized. But the only evidence that either incident was motivated by hate of Muslims is the Dehdashti family itself, not the police. Detective Frank Rovi of Pima County Sheriff’s Department, who handled the shooting investigation, said that according to the neighbors, the desert area by the Dehdashti house was often used for target practice. Neither incident was classified as a hate crime and both cases were closed by February 2005, long before the CAIR report went to press.

  • Of twenty “anti-Muslim hate crimes” in 2004 that CAIR describes, at least six are invalid – and further research could likely find problems with the other fourteen instances.

    Would Eboo Patel really say, in light of all this and more, that it is unreasonable for non-Muslims to be suspicious when a Muslim claims that he has been the victim of a hate crime? How many times must we submit to being fooled?

    There you have it in a nutshell. The forces of intolerance scream from the rooftops, “Islam is about domination”. The forces of moderation are questioned with the intent of delegitimizing them (they’re either just liars, or liars and secret radicals).

    Well, Patel, it would help if you could come up with an example of a “force of moderation” who wasn’t a public and demonstrable liar like Daisy Khan.

    Patel then proceeds to build a “fear bomb,” to hoodwink his hapless readers into being afraid to resist the advance of Islamic supremacism:

    How do you build a fear bomb? Here’s how:

    1) A high-profile event like 9/11 that raises fears and suspicions of a religion and a community.

    2) People like Amjad Choudry [sic!] who claim to represent that religion and community who look scary and say scary things.

    3) People who claim to want to protect everybody else who point to people like Amjad Choudry and say, “See, he represents Islam. Told you they were scary.”

    4) A deliberate campaign to delegitimize humanizing, moderate voices.

    This is all so patently dishonest. If Eboo Patel really wants to present himself as an alternative to the person he persists in calling “Amjad Choudry,” he needs to counter Choudary’s influence in the Muslim community. Then if non-Muslims see that the “humanizing, moderate voices” are really doing something among Muslims to neutralize Islamic supremacists and jihadists, and to counter their appeal, it will be a lot harder for anyone to make the case that “Choudry” “represents Islam” — which of course I have never said anyway.

    And that Patel would also praise the likes of Reza Aslan, a Board member of an organization that can’t think of a single move the U.S. should take to counter the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is telling as well:

    The role played by Reza Aslan in the conversation was hugely important. He made a few compelling key points. Number one: Islam is a huge religion with a long history. Saying all of its adherents are about one thing – domination – is the very definition of bigotry.

    This case would be a lot easier to make if the people Patel praised weren’t so unsavory. Daisy Khan and Reza Aslan are the voices of reason and moderation? Then we are indeed in trouble. Aslan is a Board member for the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has clear links to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and he has called for the U.S. to “squeeze a deal out of” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Number two: people like Franklin Graham and Amjad Choudry say they’re on different sides of the debate, but really they represent the same position (and ought to go have coffee together and leave the rest of us alone, as Reza colorfully suggested).

    Finally, people like Robert Spencer who seek to intentionally delegitimize moderates are advancing a not-too-subtle form of racism, and their ideas will join anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism in the dustbin of history.

    I don’t “delegitimize moderates.” They do that all by themselves. Daisy Khan said at a Lower Manhattan Community Board meeting that the building was a mosque. I was there. Then she said on ABC News that it wasn’t a mosque. I am supposed to trust her now? And Reza Aslan is part of a group that seems to have numerous links to the bloodthirsty Iranian mullahcracy. Moderate?

    And this business about anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism, in which Patel echoes Aslan and the latest talking points that are making the rounds among the Islamic supremacists, is supremely specious. Jews and Catholics weren’t shooting people at military bases, or hijacking planes and flying them into skyscrapers, or setting off bombs in their underwear on other airplanes, or trying to blow up Times Square, etc. etc. etc. There is simply no comparison between concern about Islamic supremacism and jihad and nativism, which was baseless and indeed racist.

    Patel’s agenda is clear, and the Washington Post ought to be ashamed of itself for publishing him — that is, if it had any shame.

    Jihad Watch


    6
    Oct 10

    Bill Clinton just shivved the dems: Says Israeli land-for-peace will end terrorism worldwide

    And worst of all, the headlines include both the words “surrender” and “Israel.”  Could it get any worse than this?

    Former United States President Bill Clinton said Tuesday that forcing Israel to surrender Judea and Samaria to the American-backed Palestinian Authority would take away much of the motivation for terrorism around the world.

    “It will take about half the impetus in the whole world — not just the region, the whole world — for terror away,” he told an audience of Egyptian businessmen from the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt. “It would have more impact by far than anything else that could be done.”

    First, it is pathetically naive – which Bubba is not – to even suggest such an effect.  The terrorism playground lacks a nexus to the reason for the terror.  Further, giving control of Judea and Samaria to Fatah will not lessen terror but park it right next store.  These areas would build an arsenal the same way Gaza has.

    So why is Bill Clinton sucking up to the Egyptians?  Maybe the change in leadership is on his mind?  But at the price of Israel?  What a loser.

    And why is this a problem for the dems?  Yes, American Jews have some sympathy for the land-for-peace argument in spite of decades of evidence to the contrary.  But the landscape is changing.  Conservative Jewry is more vocal.  They see Obama as a stooge.  And American non-Jews support Israel in significantly greater numbers than the Legacy Media will ever publish.  Remember the 70%+ of all members of Congress writing a letter to Obama telling him to start respecting Israel more?

    Here’s your question for your elected official:  “Mr./Ms./Mrs. Democrat Congresscritter running for reelection, I have a question.  You signed a letter in support of Israel that was sent to President Obama.  Further, we have seen nothing but increased insecurity for Israel every time she gave up land for the promise of peace.  Now former President Clinton is suggesting that they completely turn over Judea and Samaria, that such a move will remove at least half the terrorism worldwide.  This suggests that Israel’s refusal to give up portions of its ancestral lands is the reason for half the terrorism in the entire world.  Do you agree with that assessment by President Clinton?  Do you agree with another round of land for peace?”

    Liberty Pundits Blog


    1
    Oct 10

    Domestic Terrorism

    The trial has begun in the bombing of a Woodburn, OR bank in December, 2008.

    Prosecutors and defense attorneys present opening statements Wednesday in Marion County Circuit Court in the trials of father Bruce Turnidge and son Joshua Turnidge, accused in the Dec. 12, 2008, bombing at West Coast Bank in Woodburn.

    The Turnidges face 18 counts each of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, assault and other charges stemming from the bombing. Two police officers were killed, another lost his leg and a bank employee was injured when police tried to dismantle the bomb, mistakenly believing it to be a hoax device.

    And yes this was a case of domestic terrorism although no one will call it that.

    Bruce and Joshua Turnidge had long harbored anti-government feelings, but the November 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama served as a “catalyst” for the father and son to plant a bomb at the West Coast Bank and plan a bank robbery, prosecutors said today.

    The two men feared that the Obama administration would impose a slate of new restrictions on gun ownership, Marion County deputy district attorney Katie Suver said in opening statements in the aggravated murder trials for the two men. Bruce Turnidge, years ago during the Clinton administration, had similarly anticipated a crackdown on Second Amendment rights and sought funding to start his own militia, she said.

    Suver laid out the men’s anti-government leanings, grisly details of the bomb blast and the trail of evidence that investigators followed in presenting the state’s assertions that the two men were responsible for the Dec. 12, 2008 bomb blast at a West Coast Bank branch in Woodburn that killed two police officers, critically injured the Woodburn police chief, and injured a bank employee. The two men could face the death penalty if convicted.

    Of course this is just a small local example of a growing threat as Barton Gellman explains in The Secret World of Extreme Militias.

    Within a complex web of ideologies, most of today’s armed radicals are linked by self-described Patriot beliefs, which emphasize resistance to tyranny by force of arms and reject the idea that elections can fix what ails the country. Among the most common convictions is that the Second Amendment — the right to keep and bear arms — is the Constitution’s cornerstone, because only a well-armed populace can enforce its rights. Any form of gun regulation, therefore, is a sure sign of intent to crush other freedoms. The federal government is often said in militia circles to have made wholesale seizures of power, at times by subterfuge. A leading grievance holds that the 16th Amendment, which authorizes the federal income tax, was ratified through fraud. (Read “America’s New Patriotism.”)

    In a reversal of casting, the armed antigovernment movement describes itself as heir to the founders. As they see it, the union that the founders created is now a foreign tyrant. “It’s like waking up behind enemy lines,” says Terrell. He says he smelled a setup when the FBI arrested nine members of Michigan’s Hutaree militia in March and charged them with plotting to kill police. (Their trial is set to begin in February.) Terrell and other leaders put their forces on alert, anticipating a roundup. “There was a lot of citizens out there in the bushes, locked and loaded,” he says. “It’s only due to miracles I do not understand that civil war did not break out right there.”

    Some groups, though not many overtly, embrace the white-supremacist legacy of the Posse Comitatus, which invented the modern militia movement in the 1970s. Some are fueled by a violent stream of millennial Christianity. Some believe Washington is a secondary foe, the agent of a dystopian new world order.

    Originally published at Newshoggers


    The Moderate Voice


    28
    Sep 10

    FBI Raids Home of Obama Associate & Radical AAAN Leader in Terrorism Sweep

    Last Friday FBI agents raided the homes of far left activists in Chicago and Minneapolis who are linked to the FARC and Islamic radicals as part of a terrorism investigation.

    The home of radical Hatem Abudayyeh in Chicago was raided in the terror sweep.

    Hatem Abudayyeh protests against Israel in Chicago in January 2009. (Daylife)

    The AP reported on the raid in Chicago.

    FBI agents in Chicago took a laptop and documents from the home of a Palestinian-American anti-war activist in an attempt to silence his advocacy, an attorney said Sunday.

    The FBI on Friday searched eight addresses in Minneapolis and Chicago, including the home of Hatem Abudayyeh, who is the executive director of the Arab American Action Network, attorney Jim Fennerty told The Associated Press.

    “The government’s trying to quiet activists,” Fennerty said. “This case is really scary.”

    More than half a dozen agents went to Abudayyeh’s home on Friday and took any documents containing the word “Palestine,” Fennerty said.

    Abudayyeh, a U.S. citizen whose parent immigrated from Palestine, wasn’t home at the time of the raid because he was at a hospital with his mother who is battling liver cancer, Fennerty said.

    Chicago activist Thomas Burke said he was served a grand jury subpoena that requested records of any payments to Abudayyeh or his group.

    “The warrants are seeking evidence in support of an ongoing Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation into activities concerning the material support of terrorism,” said Steve Warfield, spokesman for the FBI in Minneapolis, where six additional homes were searched Friday… Burke said he received a grand jury subpoena requesting records of payments to Abudayyeh’s organization as well as two groups among the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

    There’s more…
    Hatem Abudayyeh is the executive director of the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). Hatem Abudayyeh has been with the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) since 1999, and was appointed Executive Director in 2003. The Arab American Action Network was founded by former PLO operative and close Obama family friend Rashid Khalidi. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund from 1994 through 2001, when the board approved a $ 40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network.

    In 2003 Barack Obama was an honored guest at a dinner sponsored by the AAAN for former PLO-operative Rashid Khalidi. During the dinner a video was taken that shows Barack Obama celebrating with members of this Palestinian group who are openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama even gave a toast to a Rashid Khalidi at this going away party. The LA Times will not release the video from this Jew-bashing dinner.

    Here’s a recent quote by Hatem Abudayyeh:

    “The U.S. and Israel will continue to describe Hamas, Hezbollah and the other Palestinian and Lebanese resistance organizations as ‘terrorists,’ but the real terrorists are the governments and military forces of the U.S. and Israel. The vast majority of the world sees and understands this, and are in full support of Lebanese, Palestinian and worldwide resistance to Israel and the U.S.’s naked aggression, war, imperialism and occupation. As we have seen in Iraq, where the resistance is standing up to U.S. power, the U.S. military is not indomitable.”

    Last Friday the FBI raided the home of AAAN leader Hatem Abudayyeh. He is Barack Obama’s friend.

    It should be noted… FARC terror leader Mono Jojoy was killed in an attack on September 22. Several computers were seized by authorities after the Colombian jungle attack. The FBI raided the homes of the FARC terrror sympathizers two days after Mojoy was killed.


    Big Government


    28
    Sep 10

    ICANN drops background check on terrorism after Muslims complain

    The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) removes its policy of doing background checks on new Top Level Domain applicants after Muslims complain that the policy would “be seen by millions of Muslims and Arabs as racist, prejudicial and profiling.” Well, that’s very important. We don’t want millions of Muslims and Arabs to see us as racist and prejudiced. Better to blown up in a jihad attack than that!

    “Anti-terror rule dropped from new TLD guidebook,” by Kevin Murphy at DomainIncite.com, September 27 (thanks to Joseph):

    ICANN will cut references to terrorism from its Draft Applicant Guidebook for new top-level domains, after criticism from some Arab stakeholders.

    The ICANN board of directors decided on Saturday at its retreat in Trondheim that it will revise its policy of doing background checks on new TLD applicants:

    The background check should be clarified to provide detail and specificity in response to comment. The specific reference to terrorism will be removed (and the background check criteria will be revised).

    The reference to “terrorism” first showed up in DAGv4, the latest draft. It caused a bit of a stir, with at least two Arab community members harshly criticizing ICANN for its inclusion.

    Khaled Fattal of the Multilingual Internet Group told ICANN it would “be seen by millions of Muslims and Arabs as racist, prejudicial and profiling” while Abdulaziz Al-Zoman of SaudiNIC observed that’s it’s not globally accepted “who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter”.

    It appears that their complaints have been heard.

    Jihad Watch


    24
    Sep 10

    Terrorism: Should Europe and the US Go to Red Alert?

    Counterterrorism officials in France, Germany, Britain, and the United States have given warnings this week about the rising threat of attacks by Al Qaeda and its affiliates, especially in Europe. Are our politicians listening? Are you concerned?

    “Al Qaeda and its allies are taking aim at Europe, according to US and Western intelligence officials, who say there are indications a terrorist plot is in the offing” writes the Washington Times. (HT: ACUS)

    While FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a Senate hearing on Wednesday that Al Qaeda continues to be “committed to high-profile attacks directed at the West,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stressed the increasing threat of smaller-scale attacks, which require less planning and fewer pre-operational steps and therefore are more difficult to detect before they occur.


    France’s counterterrorism chief Bernard Squarcini warned in Le Monde: “All the lights are red. They are flashing from everywhere.” The risk of a terrorist attack on French soil has “never been higher” and “objectively, there are reasons for worry.” David Ignatius covers this warning in English in the Washington Post and adds that Joerg Ziercke, the head of Germany’s federal crime office, noticed a growing number of residents traveling to terrorist camps and describes 131 people in Germany as “potential instigators.” He said 70 of them had “completed paramilitary training in terror camps” and 40 had combat experience with insurgents in Afghanistan.

    His British counterpart Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, warned of rising threats from Yemen and Somalia. According to The Telegraph he noted that “a significant number of UK residents” were receiving training from al-Qaeda’s Somali affiliate and that “it is only a matter of time before we see terrorism on our streets inspired by these Somali recruits.”


    Many papers in the United States and Europe wrote about these warnings from their countries’ top counterterrorism officials this week, but it was not front-page news. Are the media and politicians, especially in Europe, underestimating the threat?

    Or is the calm European response more appropriate because terrorism is just an ordinary risk that we have to accept and live with?

    Cross-posted from atlantic-community.org — The Open Think Tank on Global Issues


    The Moderate Voice


    23
    Sep 10

    Is Obama Complacent about Terrorism?

    (Jonathan H. Adler)

    According to Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars, President Obama seemed to suggest that a terrorist attack on the United States might not be a big deal.  According to the Washington Post, the President remarked that “we can absorb a terrorist attack.”  In an instant, a campaign-season talking point was born: The President does not worry about our nation’s security and is complacent about the terrorist threat.  Yet as Benjamin Wittes reports on Lawfare, the quote is accurate, but woefully incomplete.  The relevant portion of Woodward’s book (reproduced on The Plum Line) reads as follows:

    During my Oval Office inteview with the President, Obama volunteers some extended thoughts about terrorism.

    “I said very early on, as a Senator and continue to believe, as a presidential candidate and now as president, that we can absorb a terrorist attack. We will do everything we can to prevent it. But even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever, that ever took place on our soil, we absorbed it, and we are stronger. This is a strong, powerful country that we live in, and our people are incredibly resilient.”

    Then he addressed his big concern. “A potential game changer would be a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, blowing up a major American city. Or a weapon of mass destruction in a major American city. And so when I go down on the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that’s one area where you can’t afford any mistakes. And so right away, coming in, we said, how are we going to start ramping up and putting that at the center of a lot of our national security discussion? Making sure that that occurence, even if remote, never happens.”

    Read in context, Wittes notes, the President’s comment “does not reflect complacency, but a hard-headed realism about certain facts.”  There are reasonable bases upon which to criticize the Administration’s approach to national security, but claiming this quote shows complacency about the terrorist threat is not one of them.





    The Volokh Conspiracy


    23
    Sep 10

    Maryland: Muslims whine about “Islamophobia,” refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

    If Muslims really wants to cure “Islamophobia,” here is an easy way. They can:

    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! People like me will no longer suffer from the illness of “Islamophobia”!

    And Pamela Geller said it best: “Muslims in the U.S. are not the ones living under death threat. People who are standing up to jihad activity and Islamic supremacism are. They are not the ones targeted. We are. They are not getting death threats. We are. They don’t have to live with 24/7/365 heavy duty security, Geert Wilders does. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, the producers from Comedy Central, and accidental counter-jihad tourists like Molly Norris live under death threat. As do I.”

    Indeed, I have a stalker who has threatened my life and posted private information about me online with the clear intention of inciting Muslims to attack me, who lives in College Park, Maryland. I wonder if he attended this forum — the Nyumburu Cultural Center is in that city.

    “Panel discusses cause and effect of Islamophobia in the U.S.,” by Melissa Quijada in the DiamondbackOnline, September 23 (thanks to Tipster):

    Scattered views filled a forum yesterday as students and activists addressed the fear of Islam and Muslims that’s recently resurfaced in the media, agreeing the term Islamophobia should be discussed emphasizing similarities, not differences.

    Last night at the Nyumburu Cultural Center, the Black Male Initiative student group hosted a discussion of about 100 students and activists to address social tensions amid a recent surge of anti-Islamic sentiments. Supported by the Muslim Students’ Association and the Muslim Women of Maryland members, the event challenged the word and filled seats.

    “It’s important for us as engaged citizens and human beings to speak out against these injustices when they rear their ugly heads,” said Solomon Comissiong, Nyumburu Cultural Center’s assistant director of student involvement and public relations, as he opened the panel.

    And when discussing an issue that often creates deep divides, panelists emphasized the importance of unity in tackling such a phenomenon.

    “The existence of ‘Islamophobia’ is a social failure,” said Secretary of the Muslim Students’ Association Osama Eshera. “This is an issue we all have to deal with together.”

    Panelists paid specific attention to a string of anti-Islamic events, many of which have recently made national headlines, that led to the discussion held last night.

    Dave Zirin, a sports writer and socialist activist who co-monitored the event with Comissiong, referenced the New York City cab driver who was stabbed in the throat, face and arm after disclosing his Muslim faith. Comissiong cited the national unrest earlier this month when Florida pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn copies of the Qur’an in protest of efforts to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

    Of course, the New York cabbie stabber worked for a pro-Ground Zero mosque group, so it is hard to pin his actions on “Islamophobia.” And it’s outstanding moral myopia to tut-tut at the Qur’an-burning but not at the Muslims who murdered innocents because of it.

    “We thought it was necessary to do something like this in light of all the anti-Muslim backlash,” Comissiong said.

    Much of the first half of conversation pointed to the terrorist acts of Sept. 11 as the root of fear and hatred of Islam.

    “There’s a notion that Muslims rejoiced while Americans suffered,” said Eshera, a junior bioengineering major. “The reality is that about 300 Muslims died in the terrorist attacks.”

    Preposterous. A tenth of the people killed in the Trade Towers were Muslims? A ridiculous lie, but clearly one that Islamic supremacists have agreed upon, as it is oft-repeated lately.

    A long line of both students and seasoned social activists stepped forward to ask questions and make comments, causing the event to run longer than expected. Some fundamentally challenged the term Islamophobia and the differences between Americanized fear against Muslims and the Islamic faith.

    “You have an entire community calling it Islamophobia and a community of Muslims calling it Islamophobia,” said university aluma and panelist Rayyan Ghuma. “It’s all about semantics now.”

    “It takes us labels for us to do anything,” said Omnia Joehar, junior government and politics major. “How many have stood up until ‘Islamophobia’ was made?”

    Yesterday’s discussion even spurred Elizabeth Rosenberg, co-president of the Interfaith Dialogue Project, to address the same topic with her group members next week.

    Comissiong said he hoped the discussion was a start to spreading awareness so others can continue to address the issue on the campus.

    “We want people to leave with a heightened consciousness,” said Comissiong. “We want them to have a feeling of empowerment.”

    Oh, no worries, Comissiong. They feel plenty empowered.

    Jihad Watch


    23
    Sep 10

    Maryland: Muslims whine about “Islamophobia,” refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism

    If Muslims really wants to cure “Islamophobia,” here is an easy way. They can:

    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! People like me will no longer suffer from the illness of “Islamophobia”!

    And Pamela Geller said it best: “Muslims in the U.S. are not the ones living under death threat. People who are standing up to jihad activity and Islamic supremacism are. They are not the ones targeted. We are. They are not getting death threats. We are. They don’t have to live with 24/7/365 heavy duty security, Geert Wilders does. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, the producers from Comedy Central, and accidental counter-jihad tourists like Molly Norris live under death threat. As do I.”

    Indeed, I have a stalker who has threatened my life and posted private information about me online with the clear intention of inciting Muslims to attack me, who lives in College Park, Maryland. I wonder if he attended this forum — the Nyumburu Cultural Center is in that city.

    “Panel discusses cause and effect of Islamophobia in the U.S.,” by Melissa Quijada in the DiamondbackOnline, September 23 (thanks to Tipster):

    Scattered views filled a forum yesterday as students and activists addressed the fear of Islam and Muslims that’s recently resurfaced in the media, agreeing the term Islamophobia should be discussed emphasizing similarities, not differences.

    Last night at the Nyumburu Cultural Center, the Black Male Initiative student group hosted a discussion of about 100 students and activists to address social tensions amid a recent surge of anti-Islamic sentiments. Supported by the Muslim Students’ Association and the Muslim Women of Maryland members, the event challenged the word and filled seats.

    “It’s important for us as engaged citizens and human beings to speak out against these injustices when they rear their ugly heads,” said Solomon Comissiong, Nyumburu Cultural Center’s assistant director of student involvement and public relations, as he opened the panel.

    And when discussing an issue that often creates deep divides, panelists emphasized the importance of unity in tackling such a phenomenon.

    “The existence of ‘Islamophobia’ is a social failure,” said Secretary of the Muslim Students’ Association Osama Eshera. “This is an issue we all have to deal with together.”

    Panelists paid specific attention to a string of anti-Islamic events, many of which have recently made national headlines, that led to the discussion held last night.

    Dave Zirin, a sports writer and socialist activist who co-monitored the event with Comissiong, referenced the New York City cab driver who was stabbed in the throat, face and arm after disclosing his Muslim faith. Comissiong cited the national unrest earlier this month when Florida pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn copies of the Qur’an in protest of efforts to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

    Of course, the New York cabbie stabber worked for a pro-Ground Zero mosque group, so it is hard to pin his actions on “Islamophobia.” And it’s outstanding moral myopia to tut-tut at the Qur’an-burning but not at the Muslims who murdered innocents because of it.

    “We thought it was necessary to do something like this in light of all the anti-Muslim backlash,” Comissiong said.

    Much of the first half of conversation pointed to the terrorist acts of Sept. 11 as the root of fear and hatred of Islam.

    “There’s a notion that Muslims rejoiced while Americans suffered,” said Eshera, a junior bioengineering major. “The reality is that about 300 Muslims died in the terrorist attacks.”

    Preposterous. A tenth of the people killed in the Trade Towers were Muslims? A ridiculous lie, but clearly one that Islamic supremacists have agreed upon, as it is oft-repeated lately.

    A long line of both students and seasoned social activists stepped forward to ask questions and make comments, causing the event to run longer than expected. Some fundamentally challenged the term Islamophobia and the differences between Americanized fear against Muslims and the Islamic faith.

    “You have an entire community calling it Islamophobia and a community of Muslims calling it Islamophobia,” said university aluma and panelist Rayyan Ghuma. “It’s all about semantics now.”

    “It takes us labels for us to do anything,” said Omnia Joehar, junior government and politics major. “How many have stood up until ‘Islamophobia’ was made?”

    Yesterday’s discussion even spurred Elizabeth Rosenberg, co-president of the Interfaith Dialogue Project, to address the same topic with her group members next week.

    Comissiong said he hoped the discussion was a start to spreading awareness so others can continue to address the issue on the campus.

    “We want people to leave with a heightened consciousness,” said Comissiong. “We want them to have a feeling of empowerment.”

    Oh, no worries, Comissiong. They feel plenty empowered.

    Jihad Watch


    tag on every page -->