Countering America's Misreading and Denial of the Jihadi Threat

For years I've published this blog in the hopes that more and more Americans would grasp the gravity of the imminent threat upon America by Islam. I have spent post after post pointing out everything from flat out jihadi attacks and plots against this country to the silent jihad which has permeated our very own Federal and state governments. I have laid out how Islamic organizations in America have very real ties to terror groups like The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas and I have shown how America's courts have been used to favor the demands of the islamists. And at the same time, I have tried to sound the horn that Sharia Law is very real and will one day be implemented in America.

Some have listened, most have not.

Well, this article from Family Security Matters details a new book that is trying to wake up America and the West, as well. Please pass on this article to friends, family and coworkers. This is about saving our country.

The Need for an “Inner Jihad” in America


America needs an "inner jihad" in order to cope with the jihad being waged against us. That's the thought-provoking message of The Control Factor by Bill Siegel, a new book that analyzes the psychological impulses driving the West's misreading and denials of the jihadist threat.

Siegel argues that there's a psychological process, which he calls the "Control Factor," that copes with anxiety and insecurity from a lack of control. This is born into us and is not a reflection of one's nationality, personal strength or intelligence. Other circumstances fostering insecurity, such as America's economic condition, make the Control Factor more powerful.

This is a unique take on the problem. The downplaying of the Islamist threat is often condescendingly chalked up to a willful denial of reality by those who are weak or unintelligent. The Control Factor adds depth by identifying this psychological process so readers can see how it has been in motion since 9/11.

Insecurity is a major driving force behind human action and controlling behavior. It is, at least to a degree, why there are micromanaging bosses, strict parents and obsessive relationships. It is part of why there are so many Islamic preachers demanding punishment for those who criticize their religion. Insecurity and the resulting drive to control is something that is all around us and foreign policy formulation is no exception.

Radical Islam activates the Control Factor in a mighty way because it stimulates a feeling that we lack control from multiple angles. Its beliefs and methods are new to most Americans. It exposes vulnerabilities in things in which we previously found security, like our borders, military, Constitution and morals. For most, a true understanding of radical Islam requires an admission of one's own lack of foresight and knowledge. The Control Factor kicks into high gear.

When the Control Factor is activated, we review the past problems we've faced and solved. We find the closest match and utilize its accompanying solutions. Eventually, we recognize that we picked the wrong one and move onto the next closest match. There will be a lot of failure before we recognize that we are facing something we don't have a template for.

Siegel writes that one result of the Control Factor is the defining of the conflict as one against "terrorism." Terrorism is something we can psychologically cope with because it's been a problem for a long time and there are existing methodologies to deal with it. We're in control. An ideological struggle is vague, unpredictable and requires quick adaptations. High-stakes improvisation has to happen and mistakes are inevitable.

Our tendency to blame ourselves for the enemy's rage is not just about wanting to be liked or falsely assuming everyone thinks like us, he explains. It also comes from a desire to control the enemy's image of us. If we're responsible, we're in control. This results in a "compulsion to demonstrate how good we are."

America needs an "inner jihad," Siegel proposes, that permits us to come to terms with the three levels of jihad against us: Violent Jihad, Civilization Jihad and International Institutional Jihad. Think Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of Islamic Conference, respectively.

The first part of the "inner jihad" is to admit that "we do not yet know how to fight this war within the context of our own values, morals and laws." This is the toughest step to take because it leads to more insecurity and therefore enhances the attractiveness of ideas that reassure us that we're in control. This step requires an admission of the disadvantages that the West has in this conflict.

Americans need to learn about the enemy. Ignorance contributes to insecurity. The ability to cope with the reality increases as we feel less ignorant. As America becomes more educated on the topic, the better it can handle the Control Factor that leads to the misunderstandings and denials. Once the enemy is understood, the burden of responsibility must be placed on the aggressor, not the victim.

Siegel suggests that "mirroring" should be used as part of this struggle. This entails responding to the enemy's behavior in somewhat similar fashion. Basically, Siegel is proposing a tit-for-tat strategy. If Iran and Pakistan support the Taliban, we should support their own internal enemies. If they cross Afghanistan's borders to kill U.S. soldiers, we should cross Afghanistan's borders to destroy their terrorist training camps and bomb factories.

He also offers a good example over rhetoric. The Islamists lash out over cartoons depicting Mohammed and criticisms of their beliefs while assembling "Death to America" rallies and publishing anti-American cartoons. Our reaction is to ignore the rallies and vocally share the outrage over the Mohammed cartoons and desecration of Korans.

Siegel suggests that supporting Muslim reformists is a strategy worth trying and can serve as a "positive counterbalance" to the Control Factor. He is less optimistic about their chances than I am and is critical of terms like "radical Islam" and "Islamists," but nonetheless we both recognize supporting Muslim reformists as an important part of moving forward.

One idea he has for them is "reverse abrogation." It is often taught that when there is a contradiction in Islamic doctrine, the verse that came later is the authoritative one. Perhaps, Siegel opines, Muslim reformists should teach that Mohammed's time in Mecca, which was more peaceful, takes precedent over his time in Medina. Dr. Tawfik Hamid has some additional ideas here and here, as do the Muslim authors of The Illusion of an Islamic State.

Bill Siegel's book, The Control Factor, stands out because he doesn't just try to substantively refute the pervasive misconceptions about radical Islam. That's been done before. He identifies the psychological process behind them and how to handle it-with America's own "Inner Jihad."

Is Obama Violating His Oath Of Office?

A hard hitting article here at Family Security Matters questions whether or not President Barack Hussein Obama is truly violating his oath of office...in other words, has he failed to protect the citizens of America with his lack of alarm, his lack of identification, his lack of aggression towards the very real threat of Islam.

From the article:

The President’s act of omission in failing to contain this Islamic extremist threat was accompanied by an act of commission for issuing national security guidelines that identify “terrorism” as a danger to America but refuse to link it in any way to extremist views of Islam. In delivering his first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) to Congress last year, Obama—in an effort not to offend moderate Muslims—mandated no reference be made to “Islam,” “Islamic extremism,” or “jihad.”

Specifically naming al-Qaeda in his national security guidelines and then targeting its leaders for assassination suggests Obama believes, rightfully so, that all its members are Islamic extremists. But what those guidelines fail to recognize is that the reverse is not true—i.e., not all Islamic extremists are members of al-Qaeda. Although the Taliban is not mentioned in the guidelines, Obama has authorized targeting its leadership too as he recognizes that group’s tie to Islamic extremism. But both the Taliban and al-Qaeda are terrorist groups only representing Islam’s Sunni sect extremists. Meanwhile, the President does little, if anything, to educate Americans as to a far greater threat posed by Islam’s Shiite sect extremists. And, as that threat increases, he does nothing to defuse it.

This article makes the point that I've been making for a very long time - Barack Hussein Obama has tried to pull a scam on the American people ever since he took office. You see, Obama has a soft spot in his heart for Islam...it, after all, was very much a part of his youth, so what Obama has done is to pigeon hole the fact that the only "bad guys" in all of Islam are those of al Qaeda. This is why Obama refuses to use the words "islamic terrorism" ....this is why Obama has been so supported of islamic states. If you want more proof, go ahead and scour the videos of every comment ever made of Obama when he speaks of the war in Afghanistan - try, just try, to find footage or recorded audio where Obama speaks ill of the Taliban. You won't find it. The only disparaging remarks about our enemy in Afghanistan comes from our leader in the form of al Qaeda.

One other thing to point out - look at the incident at Fort Hood where Nidal Hassan massacred our unarmed troops there. Other than an initial acknowledgement of the tragedy by Obama, search for any reference he has ever made to that act of terrorism and then go further, look at the snail's like pace of the investigation and prosecution of that man.

Is Obama Violating His Oath Of Office?


In early November, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez set out on a mission. Voicing his deep hatred for Barack Obama to friends in Idaho, Ortega embarked upon a mission to assassinate the President. Those to whom Ortega had confided about his mission knew, armed with an assault rifle, he possessed the means to do so. Yet, by the time Ortega acted on his intentions on November 11, shooting at a White House window, not one witness had stepped forward to warn authorities about his mission. While none had a legal obligation to do so, they clearly had a moral one. Only for want of a well conceived plan to isolate the President as a target, Ortega’s mission failed.

There is irony, however, in the inaction of those who failed to forewarn the President of a serious threat to his life and the inaction of a President to forewarn and protect us against a major threat to ours. Whereas the failure of those in the Ortega incident did not violate a legal obligation, we must ask whether Obama’s failure to do so does.

Just as Ortega openly declared his intentions to do violence to the President, so too has a group of Islalmist terrorists declared its intentions to destroy us. Just as Ortega armed himself with an assault rifle with which to carry out his declared intention, so too has this group sought to arm itself with a nuclear capability to carry out its declared intention. And, just as Ortega made good on his intention to undertake a violent act, this group has made clear it is preparing to do so.

It is ironic that, had the witnesses in the Ortega incident reported the wannabe assassin’s intentions, the Secret Service would have taken action to remove or otherwise isolate the threat from the President. Yet, the President has done nothing to forewarn Americans about this group’s positioning itself to act upon its promise to destroy us or to prevent these terrorists from so doing.

The President’s act of omission in failing to contain this Islamic extremist threat was accompanied by an act of commission for issuing national security guidelines that identify “terrorism” as a danger to America but refuse to link it in any way to extremist views of Islam. In delivering his first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) to Congress last year, Obama—in an effort not to offend moderate Muslims—mandated no reference be made to “Islam,” “Islamic extremism,” or “jihad.”

While the QHSR does reference the terrorist group al-Qaeda by name, it avoids the nexus that the threat it poses to the US and its stated intention to destroy us stems from its adherence to extremist Islamic religious beliefs.

There is further irony in Obama’s decision to avoid references to Islam in his QHSR.

Prior to Obama taking office, President George Bush authorized the use of drones to target leaders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Under Obama, the use of drones has intensified, effectively eliminating dozens of high profile leaders from among these groups. Every drone assassination to date has targeted a terrorist leader sharing a common trait—a belief in Islamic extremism. Thus, while Obama recognizes the importance of eliminating Islamists via drone targeting, he fails to recognize of equal importance educating the American people via his national security guidelines as to the exact nature of the terrorist threat. Rather than link the threat to Muslims adhering to Islamic extremist beliefs, he chooses to avoid any reference to Islam.

Specifically naming al-Qaeda in his national security guidelines and then targeting its leaders for assassination suggests Obama believes, rightfully so, that all its members are Islamic extremists. But what those guidelines fail to recognize is that the reverse is not true—i.e., not all Islamic extremists are members of al-Qaeda. Although the Taliban is not mentioned in the guidelines, Obama has authorized targeting its leadership too as he recognizes that group’s tie to Islamic extremism. But both the Taliban and al-Qaeda are terrorist groups only representing Islam’s Sunni sect extremists. Meanwhile, the President does little, if anything, to educate Americans as to a far greater threat posed by Islam’s Shiite sect extremists. And, as that threat increases, he does nothing to defuse it.

The single greatest threat to America’s national security today is posed by a group of Islamic Shiite extremists, led by their Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and their non-cleric president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Iran. These two men are on a mission to arm Iran with nuclear weapons. Both claim they have already been visited by the Mahdi—a religious figure who disappeared in the ninth century as a child, ascending into a state of occultation where he remains until conditions are right for his return to Earth. Upon his return, Mahdi supposedly will restore Islam’s greatness as non-Muslims subordinate themselves to the religion or die. And both men claim Mahdi’s return will come soon, during their lifetimes, possibly in 2012.

While uninformed non-Muslims might content themselves believing time will simply prove these two religious zealots wrong, time is exactly what the Iranian leaders are banking on to enable them to create the right conditions for Mahdi’s return. However, while non-believers know Mahdi’s return will never occur, it is the conditions Iran’s two madmen seek to create for the rest of the world to usher in Mahdi’s return that should generate great concern for us.

Khamenei and Ahmadinejad believe the door for Mahdi’s return will only open once the world is immersed in global chaos. It does not take a rocket scientist to recognize this is why Tehran’s leaders seek to possess nuclear weapons. In their minds, use of those weapons will be the key to unlock the door. This game plan for Mahdi’s return has been set forth numerous times by Iran’s leadership. Not only does our President fail to heed Tehran’s message, he fails to warn the American people of an assassin who has us in the crosshairs of his nuclear “sights.”

While Obama’s actions of omission and commission have increased the threat posed by Tehran, last week the President added to the equation an act of submission.

In a rare example of bipartisan cooperation, the Senate last week passed a bill by a vote of 100 to 0 to impose the most stringent sanctions to date against Iran. The Senate, taking heed of a November 9, 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran will, within a year, possess a nuclear weapon, sought to take action now to impose sanctions that would have a much harsher impact on Iran’s economy. The vote was an indictment by both political parties that Obama is a weak fish in stopping Iran’s nuclear arms program. Even our European allies favor an effort to impose tougher sanctions on Tehran. Yet, inexplicably, the President’s response to the Senate vote was simply to raise his objection to its passing the legislation.

And the President has gone even further in his effort not to interfere with Iran’s nuclear objectives. While Obama said on November 30 the US will not compromise on Israel’s security, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta delivered a speech three days later arguing against Israel attacking Iran. Thus the President, by his actions, not only demonstrates to Iran he will not take military action or impose stricter economic sanctions, but that he also will discourage Israel from taking action independently. Obama is telling Tehran he will accept a nuclear armed Iran.

There is an interesting difference between the oath Obama took when he was sworn in as President and the oath a military officer takes. Obama swore he would “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Military officers are held to a higher standard swearing to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” ending with “So help me God.” The wiggle words “to the best of my ability” in the presidential oath would relieve Commander-in-Chief Obama of liability for naively and negligently choosing not to defend against an obvious Islamic extremist threat to our national security. Once Iran lets loose its nuclear fury, that will be the point at which Obama unleashes a US military force, led by officers sworn to the defense of our country, to do what he refused to do. But, by that time, millions will have died as a result of his naiveté.

So, Who Exactly IS The Islamists' Mole In The White House?

Great article here from Steve Emerson writing for Family Security Matters - this article does a great job of indentifying the person in the Obama Administration who is sculpting this pro-Islamic agenda and more than likely, the anti-Israel campaign. So, who is the mole? Who is the wolf in sheep's clothing with our President's ear?

Her name is Dalia Mogahed.

It's high time this traitor, this terrorist spy, this radical islamic jihadi was run out of this Administration's think tank.

Dalia Mogahed: The Islamists' White House Pipeline

Steve Emerson



Few American Islamists receive the kind of glowing media coverage given to Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, who is sometimes described as the "most influential person" shaping the Obama Administration's Middle East message.
Mogahed, who claims to have played an important role in the drafting of President Obama's historic Cairo speech to the Muslim world, was appointed to serve on the President's Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The council released its final recommendations last month.
When European Islamist Tariq Ramadan kicked off his U.S. tour last week at Cooper Union in New York City, Mogahed and two journalists joined him for a panel discussion. Her remarks emphasized polling data showing that Muslim Americans are more affluent and socially content than their European counterparts.
Muslim Americans are no more likely to support political violence than the rest of the nation, Mogahed said. The minority of Muslim Americans who do support attacks on civilians base this position on politics, not religion.
It's a message that Mogahed attempts to drive home at every opportunity.
She routinely is depicted as a scholarly analyst monitoring public opinion on subjects like anti-Muslim prejudice in the United States or global Muslim attitudes toward America. On other occasions, she is treated as a pioneering Muslim celebrity or portrayed as a victim of anti-Muslim "smears."
But the reality is much more complicated. Mogahed is not some apolitical social scientist chronicling political trends in the manner of George Gallup, founder of the parent organization for her polling center. While Gallup strived to maintain his objectivity, Mogahed has followed a very different course. As we will explain in more detail below, she works behind the scenes with radical Islamist groups to enhance their standing in the presidential council's activities.
Mogahed is a protégé of John Esposito, executive director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and a longstanding apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. The pair have worked together at the Gallup Center, and co-authored the book Who Speaks for Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think in 2007, which was subsequently turned into a film. Read the State Department website's coverage of the film premiere here.
Mogahed has been a tenacious defender of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both of which are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. During a September 2008 appearance at the Religion Newswriters Association Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., she was asked about links between the two organizations and Islamic radicals. Mogahed replied that it would be unfair to have those groups "disenfranchised" because of "misinformation." Without offering evidence, she claimed "there is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution building among Muslims. And the way to do it is [to] malign these groups. And it's kind of a witch hunt."
In CAIR's case, that "witch hunt" is rooted in the halls of the same government Mogahed now advises. It is the FBI's judgment, based upon evidence admitted in court in a Hamas-financing trial, that CAIR is a Hamas front and not "an appropriate liaison partner." Those Hamas connections appear to be the focus of an ongoing grand jury investigation into CAIR.
ISNA, like CAIR, was an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing trial. Exhibits from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial showed that the North American Islamic Trust, an ISNA subsidiary, paid $30,000 to senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk and his wife, along with another $30,000 to the Islamic University of Gaza, a school long known to be controlled by Hamas. Five former HLF officials were found guilty of illegally routing more than $12 million to Hamas.
When the White House announced Mogahed's appointment in April, her selection was warmly welcomed by CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad:
"Congratulations to Ms. Mogahed on this well-deserved appointment. Her knowledge and expertise will be an asset to this important council. The American Muslim community can feel confident that she will be a balanced and valuable resource on the vital issues the council must address."
Outreach to Islamists from White House
Since joining the White House council, Mogahed has worked quietly to ensure that CAIR and ISNA are active participants in its work. And she has reached out to radical Muslim groups like the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) as well.
Viewed in isolation, these efforts may seem innocuous. But that line of reasoning ignores the harm that stems from such policies, which permit radical Islamist groups to ensconce themselves as the sole representatives of the larger Muslim community – to the exclusion of Muslims with alternative views.
Zuhdi Jasser, head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), says Mogahed's collaboration with CAIR, ISNA and other like-minded groups is harmful to Muslims seeking to provide a non-radical alternative for their co-religionists.
"The damage is immeasurable," he told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Muslims "are going to say, 'Why bother?' "The government has chosen sides in the conflict."
Last May, Mogahed addressed the 34th convention of ICNA, an organization with long history of glorifying jihadist terror and radicalism. The conference was cosponsored by MAS, an organization founded as the U.S. chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has provided the ideological underpinnings for virtually all modern Islamic terrorist groups.
In early July, Mogahed worked behind the scenes before ISNA's 2009 convention to tape promotional videos for the White House faith-based initiative. She sent a letter to ISNA officials urging them to pass on "My informational letter to the Muslim American Community about the President's summer of service initiative," along with "The one pager from the White House about the initiative."
MPAC, which has a long record of engaging in hate speech and defending terrorists, posted a letter from Mogahed to Muslim "leaders" on its website urging them to participate in United We Serve by "telling the world what you've done." In September, MPAC boasted that it was invited to a Pentagon iftar (fast-breaking dinner) keynoted by Mogahed. Islamic Relief USA, a charitable organization backed by CAIR and other radical groups, boasted that Mogahed attended its community iftar along with officials from Agriculture Department, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Institute of Peace. Also in attendance were representatives of CAIR, ISNA, MAS and MPAC.
Muslimserve's final report contains on its second page an introductory message from Mogahed thanking CAIR, MPAC, ISNA and Islamic Relief among others for their work on the project.
Page three shows the logos of those groups, along with ICNA, the Muslim Students Association, Life for Relief & Development and the Mosque Foundation, a Bridgeview, Illinois mosque with a long history of support for radical Islamists.
Page four consists of a letter from President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama touting the administration's efforts to encourage volunteerism.
The remaining 48 pages consist of free publicity for these organizations – articles, charts and pictures explaining various projects carried out by these and other groups under Muslimserve's auspices. In October, Awad announced that Mogahed and Imam Siraj Wahhaj would be featured speakers at CAIR's 15th annual banquet. After a brief firestorm of controversy, Mogahed withdrew from the CAIR banquet on grounds that speaking there would violate "longstanding" Gallup policy against speaking to advocacy organizations.
Rationalizing Jihad, Covering for Islamists
When it comes to Muslims and jihad, Mogahed has two major themes: that only a small percentage of Muslims are radicalized, and that any radicalism that does exist results from perceptions that the West is "hostile" to Muslims, as demonstrated by support for Israel, the war in Iraq, or a tough stance against Iran's nuclear weapons efforts.
In her July 4, 2009 speech to the ISNA convention, Mogahed cited polling data from Who Speaks for Islam? In the book, Esposito and Mogahed claimed that just 7 percent of Muslims worldwide were "politically radicalized." In her ISNA speech, Mogahed defined this 7 percent as Muslims "who said 9/11 was completely justified."
Her polling found that many of the Muslims who condemned 9/11 said their moral objection was "rooted… in their religious beliefs," she said. But none of the 7 percent who said the attacks were justified "quoted the Quran to justify that view." Mogahed said "this empirical evidence completely turns on its head the common assumptions that were driving our interventions and our policies that meant to secure our country" may have "actually made things worse rather than better."
Mogahed portrayed the supporters of suicide terror as frustrated seekers of freedom and democracy who felt culturally and militarily "threatened" by the West. She said her polling data showed that those "who sympathize with terrorism don't hate our freedom; they actually want our freedom."
What distinguishes this group from other Muslims is "their sense of threat." These supporters of terror "believe more than do the mainstream that their society, their faith and their way of life is threatened, militarily threatened and in some ways even culturally threatened by the West," she continued. "They're more likely to believe that there is a war against their faith. They are also more likely to say that moving toward greater democracy will help Muslims' progress."
"Aren't you glad that Dalia is advising the President of the United States?" effused moderator Aakif Ahmad at the conclusion of Mogahed's remarks. Ahmad informed the ISNA audience that Esposito "personally" gave a copy of the book to President Obama when he spoke in Turkey and asked him to look at it prior to his June speech in Cairo.
"So, [Obama] is well aware of the information that's in this book," Ahmad said. "And that's amazing to know where we've come in the last few years."
Semantic Games and Questionable Numbers
Mogahed denies any connection between radical Islam and terrorism. Speaking to the Religion Newswriters Association in September 2008, she said that "'Islamic terrorism' is really a contradiction in terms" to mainstream Muslims "because terrorism is not Islamic by definition." As for the countless terrorist attacks that are committed in the name of Islam, Mogahed suggested that the linkage was ridiculous: "My response to that is, you know, Cuba calls itself a democracy, but that's not what we call it."
Mogahed told the journalists that the very act of mentioning jihadist violence is "counterproductive" and a "gift" to terrorists. By even raising role of Islam, she said, we permit terrorists to be seen as "legitimate" and "as moral freedom fighters."
In a 2007 speech in Aspen, Colorado, Mogahed said terrorists seek "to exploit broadly felt legitimate grievances" to win new recruits. She also appeared to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood might be a peaceful alternative to jihadists. (This idea is questionable in view of the organization's longstanding ties with the terrorist organization Hamas. Read more here and here.)
Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second in command, "wrote a very important book" criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for "trying to make change through political means by being inside a corrupt system," Mogahed said.
She suggested the jihadists are trying "to give people hope in a non-diplomatic, nonpolitical way to change things" like forcing the United States out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. "The only way that I think you can combat this is to empower people who are trying to make the same changes" by "nonviolent means and to show the world that this is possible."
Another recurring theme in Mogahed's narrative is that Muslims feel a profound sense of "humiliation." A "sense of humiliation" is "something felt very strongly among Muslims as a whole," she said in Aspen.
Perhaps her most controversial argument has been that the public in majority-Muslim nations around the world is no more likely to support terrorism than the American public. In her September 2008 speech to the Religion Newswriters Association, Mogahed claimed that polling data shows that "in every society there's a certain percentage of people that thinks targeting civilians is a great idea."
Six percent of the U.S. population, compared with 4 percent in Saudi Arabia, and 2 percent each in Iran and Lebanon and favor "targeting civilians," Mogahed said. "So, it's not sort of a Muslim anomaly, this idea of sympathizing with terrorism. In fact, Muslims are no more likely than anyone to hold this view - in some cases, slightly less likely."
But critics say the Mogahed/Esposito data is flawed – in particular by massively undercounting the percentage of Muslims who endorse terror.
In Who Speaks for Islam? , the pair claim that approximately 91 million people, or 7 percent of Muslims worldwide (the percentage who believe the 9/11 attacks were completely justified), can be referred to as "politically radicalized."
One huge problem, as Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy observed in May 2008, is that Mogahed and Esposito appear to have arrived at the 7 percent figure by understating by almost half the percentage of those who believe 9/11 was completely justified. And the pair completely ignored the additional 23.5 percent who believe 9/11 was partially justified.
When Satloff looked at their numbers more closely, he found that the percentage justifying 9/11 was closer to 36 percent, or more than 450 million people. That's about a third of the world's Muslim population.
The Pew Global Attitudes Project surveyed Muslims in the Palestinian territories and 15 countries, asking whether they viewed suicide bombings as "often or sometimes justified." The numbers varied widely - from lows of 8 percent in Egypt and 9 percent in Pakistan to 70 percent in the Palestinian territories. According to the survey, an average of 23.5 percent of Muslims supported suicide bombings in 2007.
Downplaying Brutality of Sharia
Mogahed has repeatedly sought to downplay the often brutal, coercive nature of Islamic law, or sharia. In a 2007 appearance on Link Television (an independent station based in San Francisco), Mogahed said that in virtually every country polled by Gallup, Muslims believe sharia should be "at least a source of legislation."
Interviewer Ray Suarez asked her about the fact that sharia often involves harsh punishments such as stonings, canings and cutting off hands. Mogahed replied that more Muslims associate sharia with "a more just society," "protection of human rights" and "rule of law" than with harsh punishments.
Muslims "primarily" believe sharia is "law that is going to make society more just, and that cannot be co-opted or thrown out at the whim of a despotic leader," she said.
During an October 2009 television interview in Great Britain, Mogahed joined a representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) in touting the purported benefits of sharia to women. HT is an extreme fundamentalist movement that seeks to establish a global Islamic state and expresses support for terrorism.
The program host noted that "the media" raises "issues of oppression, injustice" and "second-class citizenship" regarding sharia. "Why then do you feel that so many women in your survey specifically support sharia as the source of legislation for their countries in the Muslim world?" she asked Mogahed.
Mogahed replied that many Muslim women "associate…gender justice or justice for women with sharia compliance" When the host asked why sharia barred women from becoming heads of state, Nawaz defended the ban by belittling the record of Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, who was murdered by jihadists. Mogahed failed to rebut this comment.
Mogahed later said she would not have agreed to the interview if she had been aware of Hizb ut-Tahrir's role in the program. She suggested that another member of Hizb ut-Tahrir had "misled us" to score propaganda points.
"I don't regret anything I said" on the broadcast, Mogahed stated. "My regret is that I went on the show."
Some reform-minded Muslims are troubled by Mogahed's perceived influence with President Obama. Yemeni feminist Elham Mane'a objected to the fact that in his June 5 Cairo speech, Obama stated that the United States has litigated cases "to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and punish those who would deny it."
Attributing Obama's statement to Mogahed's influence, Mane'a contended that the wearing of the hijab outside of a Muslim country is a sign of coercion rather than free expression.
Mogahed has not responded to Mane'a's concerns. But judging from her dismissive reaction to criticisms expressed by Aayan Hirsi Ali, Mogahed does not appear terribly sympathetic to women who are oppressed by Islamists.
Ali, a native of Somalia, obtained political asylum in the Netherlands and was elected to Parliament. She renounced Islam and later wrote the screenplay for Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh's film "Submission." After Van Gogh was murdered in 2004, Ali received death threats and went into hiding. She later migrated to the United States.
In her 2008 speech to the Religion Newswriters Association, Mogahed referred to Ali as "everyone's favorite pissed-off victim" and suggested she was part of a "vocal fringe" who believe that "adopting Western values will help their progress."

The Radical Islamist Who Led The Virginia Legislature In Prayer Yesterday

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times...the most dangerous aspect of radical islam and islam in general is when westerners bestow upon it the status of a religion. It is only when islam is identified and treated as a violent political ideology will be ever be able to confront this enemy of our freedom, our way of life and our future.

Yesterday, the Virginia legislature, under the guise of "reaching out to other religions" allowed Imam Johari Abdul-Malik to give the opening prayer. G_d save us all. The below is from The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Virginia House Opens to Radical Cleric


Imam Johari Abdul-Malik of Dar al-Hijrah mosque gives the opening prayer before the Virginia House of Delegates this afternoon. The effort is part of House of Delegates' desire to reach out to religious leaders of other faiths. However, selecting Johari Abdul-Malik, the mosque's outreach director, or any religious leader from Dar al-Hijrah, is questionable due to their support for radical and political Islamic issues.

Abdul-Malik issued a statement acknowledging criticism of his invitation. In it, he dismissed critics as "voices of intolerance and divisions" that are undermining the interfaith effort of delegates Kaye Kory and Adam Ebbins:

"We therefore should not allow voices of division and hate to go unchallenged. We differ on some [of] our basic beliefs and practices but we hold in common our commitment and love of God, a God of mercy and compassion."

The record of Abdul-Malik's statements suggests that his beliefs are more nuanced than he presents here. At a 2001 conference hosted by the Islamic Association of Palestine, a now defunct propaganda branch of the Specially Designated Terrorist organization Hamas, he called for attacks against Israeli infrastructure to show Muslim displeasure with Israel's treatment of Palestinians:

"I am gonna teach you now. You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work. You can blow up power supplies… the water supply, you can do all forms of sabotage and let the world know that we are doing it like this because they have a respect for the lives of innocent people."

This is not his first statement that was devoid of tolerance and compassion. Abdul-Malik has predicted a Muslim majority in America, as he did in a November 2004 Friday Khutba, or sermon:

"Alhamdullilah [Praise to Allah] and we will live, will see the day when Islam, by the grace of Allah, will become the dominant way of life… I'm telling you don't take it for granted because Allah is increasing this din [religion] in your lifetime. Alhamdullilah [Praise to Allah] that soon, soon… before Allah closes our eyes for the last time, you will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America – that's where we are now – to being the first religion in America."

In addition, Abdul-Malik has openly expressed support for some very radical individuals.

His defense of convicted terror facilitator Ali Al-Timimi, an extremist cleric who stated "mujahideen killed while fighting Americans in Afghanistan would die as martyrs," is a prime example. According to court documents, Timimi recommended that his followers "obtain jihad training from Lashkar-e-Taiba because its belief system was good and it focused on combat." Abdul-Malik told the Times Union, on July 16 2005, that Timimi's conviction was "like being convicted of murder, even though you haven't killed anyone." He also told the New York Times about his concern that the conviction would "chill free speech." As the newspaper reported:

"There is a view many Muslims have when they come to America that you could not be arrested for something you say," said Imam Johari Abdul Malik, outreach director at Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church. "But now they have discovered they are not free to speak their minds. And if our opinions are out of vogue in the current climate, we feel we are all at risk."

Just last month, the mosque hosted a fundraiser for Sabri Benkahla, who is serving a 10-year prison sentence for obstruction of justice and perjury for statements he made before a Virginia grand jury investigating the "Virginia jihad" terror cell inspired by Timimi.

Abdul-Malik is on record about the moderation of Anwar al-Awlaki, a previous spiritual leader at Dar al-Hijrah who went on to become an al-Qaeda affiliated radical fighting America from Yemen. Abdul-Malik falsely claimed that Awlaki was not extremist during his time at Dar al-Hijrah, when he stated:

"Let's be clear when Anwar Al Awlaki was at Dar Al-Hijrah, he was articulating the same message that I articulate today in Dar Al-Hijrah, a very open, a very engaging, a very community wise and contemporary understanding of the faith within the framework of its traditionalism."

However, while he was a prayer leader at Dar al-Hijrah, Awlaki declared that Palestinians who killed Israeli civilians were freedom fighters, claimed that the 9/11 terrorists were actually "victims not hijackers," and accused the FBI of pinning the blame on Muslims for the 9/11 attacks.

Abdul-Malik is not the only leader of his mosque to have defended violence or known terrorists. Several of Dar al-Hijrah's leaders have themselves been connected to, or convicted for, providing financial and logistical support to terrorist organizations. A former member of Dar al-Hijrah's Board of Trustees, Abdulhaleem al-Ashqar, brought together Hamas members and their U.S. contacts at a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia designed to discuss ways to thwart U.S.-led Middle East peace efforts. Ashqar also directed the Al Aqsa Educational Fund, a Hamas-linked group. Likewise, Ismail Elbarasse, a Dar Al-Hijrah founder, worked for Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and wired $735,000 to Hamas operative Mohammad Salah.

Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh, Dar Al-Hijrah's imam from August 2003-May 2005, was the Baltimore regional director of the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA), a U.S. designated terrorist organization. Mohammed Al-Hanooti, Dar Al-Hijrah's imam from 1995-1999, was the former director of the Islamic Association for Palestine, which, as mentioned earlier, was an American front for Hamas.

Even Shaker El-Sayed, the current imam at Dar al-Hijrah, has a record of support for radical ideologies. He has written admiringly of Hasan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The terrorist organization of Hamas was founded as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the pamphlet, Jihad, Banna states:

"Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and the fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward."

Moreover, in 2004, El-Sayed told the Chicago Tribune that Al-Banna's ideas are "the closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life."

Johari's statements and Dar al-Hijrah's extremist past run contrary to the spirit of cooperation which the mosque attempts to express today. There's nothing wrong with seeking leaders of many faiths to address the delegates. There certainly are better candidates.

'Jihad Jane' Case Proves How Home Grown Islamic Terror Could Be America's Biggest Threat

You know, when you look at all of the safeguards that America has put in place to protect the American people from radical islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, it is fairly impressive - considering what was actually in place prior to the massacre at the Twin Towers. At the same time, the case now of the seemingly "normal" American woman dubbed "Jihad Jane" exposes just how porous this country of ours is to home grown islamic terrorism. Sure, Colleen LaRose was discovered and arrested without her shedding blood, but read the article below from Breitbart and then tell me how we can possibly catch every terrorist that comes out of oblivion like LaRose.

It's my view that there are hundreds of "Jihad Janes" in our midst. It is also my contention that there are thousands of people more subtley assisting the "Jihad Janes" - people we will NEVER identify. This is where the soft jihad meets the jihad we all are more familiar with. The soft jihad deals with many things but one of them is recruitment and what you see missing to a great extent in this article is just exactly HOW Colleen LaRose was recruited - hopefully, as time goes by we will learn more on just how it happened, because in my view, it is that process where a woman in this situation crosses the line that will be determine if we can survive in America or not. I truly hope that Janet Napolitano has given up on her witch hunt of conservative extremists and devotes the resources to discoverning this...but most of you know my feelings about Napolitano, so don't hold your breath.

Pa. suspect: Caretaker by day, 'Jihad Jane' online


PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Colleen LaRose spent long days caring for her boyfriend's father in a second-floor apartment in Pennsburg, a small town north of Philadelphia. But online, federal authorities say, the devoted caretaker developed a daring alter ego, refashioning herself as "Jihad Jane" while helping recruit and finance Muslim terrorists—and eventually moving overseas to try to kill an artist she perceived as an enemy to Islam.

LaRose, 46, was charged Tuesday with conspiring with jihadist fighters and pledging to commit murder in the name of a Muslim holy war, or jihad. The indictment was announced hours after authorities arrested seven suspected terrorists in Ireland allegedly linked to LaRose, who has been in prison since her Oct. 15 arrest while returning to the United States.

In e-mails recovered by the FBI over 15 months, LaRose agreed to marry an online contact from South Asia so he could move to Europe. She also agreed to become a martyr, the indictment said.

But perhaps she felt like one already.

Born in Michigan, LaRose moved to Texas as a girl and had married twice by age 24. Her first marriage came at 16, to a man twice her age in Tarrant County, Texas, public records show. There are no records or reports of any children from either union, both of which were long over by the time she met Pennsylvanian Kurt Gorman in 2005.

LaRose lived with Gorman and his father in Pennsburg, caring for the older man while Gorman worked at his family's small business in another town, Gorman said this week.

"She was a good-hearted person," he said Wednesday. "She pretty much stayed around the house."

But online, she grew increasingly devoted to a loose band of what authorities say were violent co-conspirators from around the world. They found her after she posted a YouTube video in June 2008 saying she was "desperate to do something somehow to help" ease the suffering of Muslims, the indictment said.

She eventually agreed to try to kill Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who had angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad with the body of a dog, according to a U.S. official who wasn't authorized to discuss details of the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Despite Web images that show LaRose in a Muslim head covering, Gorman said he never picked up on any Muslim leanings. She never attended religious services of any kind, he said. Gorman, 47, sensed nothing amiss in their five-year relationship until the day after his father's funeral last August.

"I came home and she was gone. It doesn't make any sense," he said Wednesday outside his firm in nearby Quakertown.

That same day, LaRose had removed the hard drive from her computer and set off for Europe—federal authorities won't specify where. She had swiped Gorman's passport and planned to give it to the co-conspirator she had agreed to marry, the indictment said.

It's unclear how she was able to travel overseas, given that the FBI, presumably tipped to her online postings, had interviewed her July 17. According to the indictment, she denied soliciting funds for any terrorist causes or making the postings ascribed to "JihadJane."

By Sept. 30, she wrote online that it would be "an honour & great pleasure to die or kill for" her intended spouse, the indictment said. "Only death will stop me here that I am so close to the target!" she is accused of writing.

Her federal public defenders, Mark T. Wilson and Ross Thompson, declined to on the case again Wednesday.

Irish police disclosed, though, that they had arrested two Algerians, two Libyans, a Palestinian, a Croatian and an American woman married to one of the Algerian suspects. They were not identified by name.

"I'm glad she didn't kill me," Vilks told The Associated Press on Wednesday, saying the suspects appeared to be "low-tech." He said he has built defense systems in his home to thwart would-be terrorists, including a safe room and electrified barbed wire.

LaRose is scheduled to appear in court March 18 on the indictment, which was returned March 4 and unsealed Tuesday. The document does not link her to any organized terrorist groups.

She is unusual in being one of just a handful of U.S. women ever charged with terrorism, the Justice Department said. And her online conversations suggest she knew that to be an advantage—as she thought her blond, American profile would help her move freely in Sweden to carry out the attack, the indictment said.

The case "shatters the conventional wisdom that somehow the U.S. is immune to the heady currents of radicalization that have affected citizens of other Western countries," said Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman, an international securities expert.

LaRose lived in a tidy red brick apartment building on Main Street, a busy roadway lined with porch-front houses, many decorated with American flags, and a post office.

"It's a great place. A quiet little town," said Pennsburg real estate agent Debbie Turner. "But you never know who your neighbors are. You have to be careful."

LaRose had a few minor convictions in Texas in the 1980s for trespassing and other misdemeanors, according to online records, which list her then as 4 feet 11 and 105 pounds.

"For all intents and purposes, she's the neighbor next door," said Hoffman, noting that the Internet enables like minds around the world to meet up, for better or worse.

"You could get all the thrills of participation in an illegal clandestine act in the comfort of your own bedroom," he said. "This is someone who, I think, because of the communicative power of the Internet is able to ... enter into something that is larger than herself."

Hey Glenn Beck...I Have a Tweet For You...GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS

You know, America has woken up to the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is absolutely incompetent when it comes to strategizing about or even addressing the U.S. economy. We have also seen in the past that Vice President Biden was incompetent in addressing a solution to the War in Iraq (with his three state solution of Shias, Sunnis and Kurds). And now, Glenn Beck has revealed that he has NO FUCKING BUSINESS even TRYING to discuss the political situation in Europe. Beck has been a marvel at laying out the Left in America's onslaught against the U.S. Constitution and the democratic republic we hold so dear. Beck has been a beacon of light in the fight against the corruption of our Washington D.C. politicians, the unions and organizations like ACORN. But yesterday, Glenn Beck revealed nothing but sheer ignorance when it comes to Geert Wilders and the fight against islamofascism in Europe.

Here's the video of Beck trying to draw a picture of conservatives in Europe who have had the gall to finally stand up against the islamic invasion of western Europe:

Here's the hypocrisy of all of this by Beck. In America, there are a handfull of conservative politicians who are absolutely hell bent in the war on islamic terror - they have also been bastions of defense against the terroristic likes of CAIR - they have simply taken a stand against the jihad in America that seeks Sharia Law and that America doesn't submit to islam. Beck hasn't said a word about one of those politicians. Most of us cheer these American patriots who have been smart enough and brave enough to stand up to islam and risk the dreaded stereotype of "islamophobe." Yet, in Europe, where the Europeans are 10 years too late in fighting the islamic invasion and takeover, a man like Geert Wilders has literally put his life on the line to stand up to the islamification of his home country, The Netherlands, is labeled a "supremacist" or as Beck labels him....a "fascist."

In that clip, Beck positions himself somewhere in between a spokesman from CAIR and the european-styled communist tool, Charles Johnson of LGF. And where Beck makes his biggest mistake is trying to reflect American politics upon Europe - the two simply do not resemble each other in any way. To label those on the "far right" in Europe as "fascists" is nothing but piss poor journalism, Mr. Beck. And my suggestion is that you stick to your forte' which is American politics and protection of freedom in America.

We don't turn on the television each night to watch Rosie O'Donnell give us a lecture on the physical properties of steel, we don't turn it on to watch Tiger Woods school us on fidelity, we don't turn it on to listen to a seminar by Keith Olbermann on unbiased journalism and we certainly don't want to turn our television on and listen to Glenn Beck take a stab at the motives of those in Europe fighting on the front lines against the radical islamists.

Geert Wilders is a champion in the desert....the desert in which a line has been drawn in that very sand...the line that separates a country from its attackers. And believe me, Mr. Glenn Beck, if the wave of islamic jihad spreads across the globe and continues its assault in America, you will apparently have no choice but to label a ton of us here in America who refuse to submit to Allah and Mo as "fascists" as well.

In The Past Three Days, 17 Countries Have Scrambled To Raise Islamic Terror Alerts

Okay, if you haven't noticed, the world is in a panic over the threats of islamic terror and just to showcase that fear, seventeen countries in just the past three days have raised their preparedness in real anticipation of islamic terror attacks.

From the article at DEBKA:

In the last three days, the governments of eleven countries have scrambled to elevate their preparedness levels for Islamist terror, or enforced extraordinarily stringent security measures. Another six governments have pursued these steps without fanfare.
Friday and Saturday, Jan. 22-23, India placed its airlines and airports and those of all of South East Asia -Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - on alert for a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Taibem. The UK elevated its terror threat level from "substantial" to "severe" - one below top and suspended direct British airline flights to and from Yemen.

At the same time, the British have made headlines with their preparations for an attack that they say is imminent, not just possible....but likely.

By the way, you probably should know that the United States, under Barack Hussein Obama, has NOT raised the terror alert.

More from the article:

Last week, six people on the newly-expanded no-fly list were not allowed to board US-bound flights - an Egyptian and Saudi Arabian at Heathrow, London, a man in Nairobi, another at Saint Maarten in the Caribbean and two more at home airports in Minneapolis and Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Throw into this mix the latest purported audio tape from Osama bin Laden who hints of plans underway for more terror attacks and you have a world bordering on total security chaos. So, why is this all happening so seemingly out of the blue? Well, I would put forth three reasons:

1. Northwest Flight #253 on Christmas Day which saw a terrorist on board come as close as possible to bringing down that flight revealed the feeble security measures that the U.S. and other countries have in place - it brought a sense of blood in the water scenario that has attracted terrorists to move forward immediately with their plans.

2. Barack Hussein Obama. The evidence has mounted over the past year that America's new President is not only soft on terror but that he is soft on islamic talking points. While George W. Bush was seen as an enforcer of America's counter-terrorism measures, Obama is seen as not only a sympathizer to islamic outrage in the world, but is perceived as an ally to some extent.

3. America's victory in Iraq. While it is not written about in the MSM, the fact that America's fighting forces attained victory in Iraq and the fact that the Iraqi democratic form of government appears to have legs has forced the world's islamic terror groups to ratchet up the chaos. Almost in exact correlation with the American victory in Iraq, did al Qaeda really begin its onslaught on Yemen - the idea is to try and minimize any attention on Iraq's new government.

Let's be real. You can cut the tension in the air with a butter knife right now - each morning that I get up, I thoroughly expect a bombing to have taken place in London. And how many of you out there really think we can get through the next 30 days without an airliner bombing? Are we even sure that the Egyptian airliner that went down after leaving Beirut was due to "weather?"

I would say that in the next week you will see another dozen countries join these 11 countries in their terror watch preparations - it's not hysteria, it's not paranoia...it's a reaction to valid and very real threats.

Rush of terror alerts on three continents, Middle East

In the last three days, the governments of eleven countries have scrambled to elevate their preparedness levels for Islamist terror, or enforced extraordinarily stringent security measures. Another six governments have pursued these steps without fanfare.

Friday and Saturday, Jan. 22-23, India placed its airlines and airports and those of all of South East Asia -Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - on alert for a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Taibem. The UK elevated its terror threat level from "substantial" to "severe" - one below top and suspended direct British airline flights to and from Yemen.
Last week, five Britons were apprehended at Islamabad airport attempting to pass their boarding passes to five others. Yemen itself stopped issuing entry visas at Sanaa airport. The British appear to fear a fresh spate of terrorism inside the country.

Saturday, US airport authorities were warned that at least two female suicide bombers of "non-Arab appearance" and bearing Western passports may have been sent to America by al Qaeda-Yemen - either to blow up US-bound flights or commit suicide attacks inside the country.
Although the Obama administration has not formally raised the current terror alert level, vigilance and screening at American and foreign airports have been radically heightened since a Nigerian terrorist tried to blow up the Northwest airliner on Christmas day. Since Jan. 4, the airlines and passengers from 14 listed countries have faced body screening before boarding flights to the United States.

Last week, six people on the newly-expanded no-fly list were not allowed to board US-bound flights - an Egyptian and Saudi Arabian at Heathrow, London, a man in Nairobi, another at Saint Maarten in the Caribbean and two more at home airports in Minneapolis and Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Referring to the failed airline bombing, former White House counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke told ABC: "There are others who are still out there who have been trained and who are clean skins - that means people who we do not have a record of, who may not look like al Qaeda terrorists, who may not be Arabs, and may not be men."
On Dec. 26, the day after the Northwest incident, debkafile's counter-terror sources reported that since early October, President Obama and top US security officials have been aware of the new network or cluster of cells taking shape in Europe. First detected by the German BND, it appears to be structurally similar to the Hamburg cell, which planned and executed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. The German agency also tipped off Israel to its forecast of a new wave of Islamist terror threatening the US and other parts of the world.



On Dec. 11, disclosed: "Al Qaeda is believed to have taken to employing in their European networks typical Westerners of Caucasian appearance, quite different from the stereotypical Muslim."
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates have taken their own precautions. Jordan's security services are fully mobilized since the attempt to blow up an Israeli embassy convoy on Jan. 15. Israel routinely receives terrorist advisories from Western intelligence agencies and maintains its own security regimen at home.

The Turkish media report that more than 120 people were arrested in 16 cities Friday, Jan. 22, including suspected heads of al Qaeda's local branch. According to some of the detainees had been planning an attack on the regional NATO command center in the Afghan capital of Kabul as well as inside Turkey.

debkafile's counter-terror experts note the increasing transnational nature of al Qaeda operational planning.

Does the Obama Administration Understand The Islamic Threat?

Okay, this is a good piece here from Family Security Matters regarding how the Obama administration certainly seems to be doing its best to ignore and minimize the threat of islamic terror threat to America but I believe the author needed to ask another question. That question should be: "Is the Obama administration deliberately working towards the end result of sacrificing America to islamic terror?"

Today, while listening to The Wilkow Majority show on Sirius radio, I heard Andrew Wilkow sum up the Obama administration intention of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a Manhattan court, this way:

"Either Obama and Holder are ignorant of what that trial will produce or Obama and Holder are working for the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" - I paraphrased that slightly because I couldn't write it down, but Wilkow repeated it....."Bad is that Obama is ignorant, Worse is that Obama is in on it."

The point Wilkow was making was this - there is no way in Hell that Mohammed can have a trial proceeding in NYC without it being declared a mistrial and the only way Obama can't see that is if he's ignorant or he's an accomplice to the desire to free the al Qaeda jihadi. For those of you just coming out of a two year coma, Barack Hussein Obama is an attorney - he went to law school so there's NO WAY he can plead ignorance of something this basic...so....we are left with the "worse" option in that Obama is indeed deadset on seeing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is released.

Exclusive: Does the Administration Truly Understand the Threat of Islamism?

While some Americans are busy swooning over the “news” that Johnny Depp is only the fourth man in history to receive the highly coveted endorsement of “Sexiest Man Alive” by People magazine twice (joining this exclusive club with luminaries George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Richard Gere), others are focusing on the extremely serious security situation that our nation faces with regard to Islamic terrorism.

In recent news, there was the grisly attack at Fort Hood by a psychiatrist and Army major who, by all accounts, was an out-and-out jihadist. As Americans struggled to face the reality, the media tried to sideline the conversation with talk of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), even though Maj. Hasan had never been deployed overseas, and depression – basically doing everything they could to avoid talking about the fact that he was a – wait for it – Muslim.

In times of crisis and strife, we look to our Commander in Chief for words of wisdom, direction, and reassurance. But the words coming out of President Obama’s mouth in the direct aftermath of Fort Hood were jarring, to put it mildly. During televised remarks from a Tribal Nations Conference, Obama started off by thanking everyone who helped make the conference a success. He then gave a “shout out” to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow, to whom he referred as a “Medal of Honor winner.” First of all, Dr. Crow did not receive the Medal of Honor – the highest award for valor in action bestowed to a member of the military – rather, he received the Medal of Freedom, the highest honor bestowed upon a civilian. And to refer to him as a “winner” rather than a “recipient” reduces the status of either award to the top prize in a Monopoly tournament. And Obama himself was the one who awarded Dr. Crow the Medal of Freedom – did he not remember? Perhaps his teleprompter was on the fritz.

It took Obama several minutes to get around to mentioning the horrific act of Maj. Hasan at Fort Hood, which he then termed as a “tragic shooting” and “horrific outburst of violence.” Interestingly enough, he was not “shocked and outraged,” although he expressed those sentiments after the murder of an abortion doctor.

News also leaked out that former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura made a clandestine trip to Fort Hood the evening following the attack to commiserate with the families and comrades of those slain and wounded. The Bushes eschewed all press coverage, preferring to keep the event as private and intimate as possible. Meanwhile, President Obama and First Lady Michelle went to Camp David for the weekend, and did not make an appearance at Fort Hood until the following Tuesday for the memorial service.

The comparison is breathtaking.

But beyond that, there are a number of troubling things about this administration’s reaction to Islam-related events:

The decision to bring the 9/11 trials to a civilian court. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in federal court in Manhattan, just blocks away from where the Twin Towers collapsed. Even after a lengthy explanation by Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the decision-making process, we still don’t know exactly why federal court is the better venue. And speaking in China, President Obama made a statement to the Chinese press that KSM would be “convicted” and had “the death penalty applied to him;” backing off from his comment after NBC correspondent Chuck Todd pointed out that the statement looked as though he were trying to interfere in the trial process. As Andrew McCarthy points out, “He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool.”
The administration also asked Congress to delay its inquiry into the Fort Hood incident, and House Democrats agreed to honor that request. One can’t help but wonder why.
Finally, it’s been more than 80 days since the administration has been asked to make a decision regarding Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s August 30th request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, although we are told that the administration is “very close” to a decision. Again, why the delay? The more we wait, the worse the situation becomes, and the more troops are shortchanged.

What does all of this mean? Does the administration truly understand the threat we face or … what? Dare we ask what the alternative is?

Screaming Allah Akbar He Killed, Yet The Media Will Not Call It Terrorism!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle



We must not call terrorism terrorism. We must find a pseudo-psychiatric cause fot the horror that Major Hasan. Yet Hasan was shouting "Allah Akbar" as he went on his rampage.

The man who pulled the trigger and massacred 13 U.S. army soldiers Thursday and wounded 30 others is the grandson of Arabs from Samaria, a devout Muslim psychiatrist and a U.S. army officer who screamed, “Allah Akbar” (Arabic for Allah is Great) before he fired. The attack ended after he was seriously wounded, and he is in intensive care at an army hospital.

He was identified at Major Nidal Malkik Hasan, whose cousin said became stricter in his devotion to Islam after his mother died nine years ago. The murder at the Fort Hood, Texas base, the largest in the United States, is the worst Muslim-related attack in the country since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

An aftershock of the massacre is the revelation that many warning signs were clear before he began his shooting spree, and Texas Senator Bailey Hutchinson said that investigators are examining if "there is something more than just one deranged person” involved in the episode. It is not yet known if Hasan was able to gain possession of his two non-military semi-automatic handguns weapons without outside assistance.

Either Hasan or someone with the same name began posting on websites six months ago that suicide bombers might be characterized as soldiers who save their comrades by throwing themselves over grenades. At approximately the same time, he was transferred from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Fort Hood

A classmate of Hasan in a master’s program last year described him as “Muslim first and an American second.” One Islamic extremist website has claimed he was hero who "killed no less than 12 Crusade foreigners” and sowed “terror and chaos in the ranks of the enemy.”

Muslims in the United States immediately expressed fears of a backlash. His grandfather in Al-Bireh, located next to Ramallah in Samaria, told Reuters, "America made him what he is. Whether he became angry or something else, I don't know."

Blogger Robert Salaam, a former U.S. marine who converted to Islam, wrote, “I know that my fellow non-Muslim Americans would love to see me leave my country. I wonder where they would like me to go.”

Hasan's brother, who was visiting the United States, hastily returned to his Al-Bireh home after the murders.

I would love to see Robert Salaam go to any one of the 57 Islamic nations in this world. He could live very comfortable there. I would willingly help to pay for his one-way ticket.

The truth is that we cannot call this Islamic Terrorism. Hell we cannot call it Islamic anything. That is forbidden by Homeland Security. This was a "Man-caused Disaster". So
much so that the Main Stream Media is following suit:

Larry King - Anger at idea Islamist ideology was a possible motivation in Ft. Hood attack

CNN - Larry King Live - November 5th, day of Ft. Hood Attack - Dr. Phil & Shoshana Johnson accuse JAG officer of being dangerously "ignorant" for his well articulated argument that the Islamist ideology was appearing more probable as a main component of Major Hasan's motivation for the shooting.

Notice how they all fall into line that one MUST NOT INSULT THE MUSLIMS.

Yet they can attack us all they want. Can curse us. Can abuse our freedoms. And nothing can be said or done.

There is even talk of the death penalty, but knowing the MSM and the ACLU, I doubt that Hasan will even be brought to trial.

Why bother? The way Barack Hussein Obama has been appeasing and ass kissing licking to the Muslims, Hasan should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor (for such a heroic act), given an Honorable Discharge, and reparations for wrongful imprisonment and being wounded (a Purple Heart for that) of a few million dollars. An then the Muslim Community won't rise up though out the world screaming: "Allah Akbar!"

Our President In Action!