Arrest made in another suburban disturbance
9 hours ago
Showing posts with label jihad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jihad. Show all posts
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Man Who Despises America...
from The American Spectator
By Mark Hyman
The very next paragraph is going to make the nut jobs on the far left excitable beyond belief. I am not referring to all Democrats or even a majority of liberals. I am singling out the "they've-lost-all-touch-with-reality" crowd. This includes Media Matters for America led by the admitted hit-and-run, drunk-driving serial liar. The group includes the unshaven, bathrobe-clad unemployed who live in their mother's basement and are devout followers of MoveOn.Org. It is also the bitter, aging spinster working at the New York Times, the morbidly obese documentary film maker, and cable TV news' resident drama queen who hosts MSNBC's Countdown. They are about to simultaneously suffer from brain aneurisms. So without further delay, I'll say it.
Barack Obama despises America.
When people who voted for Obama in 2008 -- including registered Democrats -- start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it "in for America," then it's clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.
The central conviction of Obama's ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world's ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. Consider these facts.
The 30-years of Obama's post-adolescent life are radical by any measure. First, he grew up listening to the ramblings of committed Communist Frank Marshall Davis. It had such a profound effect on him that he wrote fondly of Davis in his first book. In fact, that book is replete with statement after statement about how the U.S. is deeply flawed. Most Americans believe in American exceptionalism. Not so with Obama.
Patriotic Americans would not have listened to the bigoted, anti-Semitic, hate-America rants of a fringe religious leader for 20 seconds let alone for 20 years. Yet, Obama who admitted he attended services at Trinity United Church at least twice a month for two decades called Jeremiah Wright his mentor and his moral sounding board.
Nor would most Americans cultivate a close friendship with an admitted domestic terrorist and his wife whose most notable life's accomplishments were to set off bombs that killed and maimed innocent people.
Joining Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright in organizing attendance at Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's 1995 march on Washington is beyond imaginable. Especially after Farrakhan demonstrated public support for Colonel Muammar Qaddafi during the Libyan Leader's most bellicose years against the U.S., which included Libyan complicity in numerous terrorist attacks.
Obama's view of America in national security and foreign affairs is profoundly disappointing to say the least.
Americans overwhelmingly view the men and women who saved Europe and the Far East during World War II as comprising the Greatest Generation. By his comments and actions, President Obama obviously thinks otherwise.
Obama did not honor American greatness on the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift while on his first European trip. Instead, he accused "America [of having] shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward its European allies.
He also denigrated the accomplishments of the American G.I. during World War II in the Pacific theater when he offered a thinly veiled apology for the U.S. having dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those acts brought the war to a swift conclusion, perhaps saving hundreds of thousands of lives when it appeared Japan was prepared to wage an island-by-island battle to the last man.
Obama ordered the release of the so-called CIA "torture memos," seriously damaging delicate intelligence relations with allied nations and placing at grave risk the safety of U.S. intelligence officers working overseas. The impact of his action handcuffs the ability of U.S. intelligence officials to protect the U.S. and American interests from acts of terrorism.
In a matter of weeks last spring, Obama gave deference to a variety of belligerent leaders while stiff-arming longtime American allies. First, he called for closer relations with Cuba while ignoring that nation's long list of continuing human rights abuses. Then he warmly welcomed Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at an Organization of American States summit.
Next, he failed to respond and set the record straight after Nicaragua's Communist leader Daniel Ortega listed alleged U.S. crimes and atrocities during a nearly one-hour rant at the OAS meeting. It is unsettling that in his own remarks Obama incorrectly claimed the OAS has 36 members rather than the actual 34. Ortega and the hemisphere's other Socialist leaders claim the OAS would include 36 members if Cuba and an independent Puerto Rico were allowed to join. Mere coincidence or Freudian slip?
There are 2 more pages
Click to read the rest of this great article
Maddow Complains Labeling Hasan 'Terrorist' Would 'Paint the Democrats as Soft on Terror'
Could anyone be more intellectually dishonest about blatant islamic terrorism than Maddow is being? There is so much information out there right now, with I'm sure more to come, that proves these savage murders were absolutely an act by a muslim in his quest to kill infidels.
For her to continue to try and spin the situation as just a multiple homicide by someone suffering from PTSD is beyone disgusting. Would she still call it that if someone from her immediate family was one of the victims?
Rees
from New Busters
By Jeff Poor
November 13, 2009
It's one thing to avoid the "terrorist" label when reporting on Ft. Hood suspect Major Nidal Hasan. It's quite another to say that those who do use it are making a political calculation to "paint the Democrats as soft terror." Yet that's what MSNBC's Rachel Maddow insisted on her Nov. 11 broadcast.
Maddow launched into a minute-and-a-half soliloquy on why it is bad for the Democratic Party when commentators label Hasan a "terrorist." She even attempted to make the case on Hasan's behalf against a terrorism label. Who needs a legal team when you have friends like Maddow and Chris Matthews, who fretted over the legality of Hasan's al Qaeda communications?
"Remember this one? Yes, it is the old ‘paint the Democrats as soft on terror' routine," Maddow said. "But in order to play that politicizing terrorism, anti-Democratic greatest hits, the Fort Hood case has to be terrorism. Now, regardless of how you feel about the political issue of politicizing terrorism, it's worth asking was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It's not just a political question. It's not just a judgment call. It's not just a matter of taste. It's a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer."
Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and, according to Maddow, because those charges don't indicate terrorism, the terrorism characterization should be avoided.
"And the charges today didn't include anything related to terrorism," Maddow said. "Terrorism is not just conceptual political jargon. It's a legal term and it has interestingly changed over the past few years. In order for something to be legally considered terrorism, do you have to be taking instructions from a terrorist group? Do you have to have some sort of clear political motive behind the violence? Is it about the way that you commit the crime, what sort of weapons that you use in doing? Is it about how many people that you kill in your crime? Is it about the specific type of people you target, whether they're civilian or military?"
However, as Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Command, explained, these charges are not set in stone and could change, which could altogether ruin Maddow's argument against branding Hasan a terrorist. But that wasn't stopping Maddow from sanctimoniously contending that using the word terrorism is nothing more than a strategic political maneuver and that it is an indictment of those making them, not the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding 29.
"If you're interested in more than just making political hay out of the Fort Hood case, these are the sort of legitimate questions you would want to ask before labeling this or any case an instance of terrorism," Maddow said. "Those who are calling this terrorism or making their case in large part because Maj. Hasan is a Muslim and because he's alleged to have said ‘God is great' before the shootings. And while it might make for exciting politics to argue murders by committed religious Muslims are presumptively terrorist acts, those exciting political allegations actually say a lot more about the people making them than they do about the real character of the tragedy at Fort Hood and how we, as a country, should respond to it."
Click to read the article and the comments
For her to continue to try and spin the situation as just a multiple homicide by someone suffering from PTSD is beyone disgusting. Would she still call it that if someone from her immediate family was one of the victims?
Rees
from New Busters
By Jeff Poor
November 13, 2009
It's one thing to avoid the "terrorist" label when reporting on Ft. Hood suspect Major Nidal Hasan. It's quite another to say that those who do use it are making a political calculation to "paint the Democrats as soft terror." Yet that's what MSNBC's Rachel Maddow insisted on her Nov. 11 broadcast.
Maddow launched into a minute-and-a-half soliloquy on why it is bad for the Democratic Party when commentators label Hasan a "terrorist." She even attempted to make the case on Hasan's behalf against a terrorism label. Who needs a legal team when you have friends like Maddow and Chris Matthews, who fretted over the legality of Hasan's al Qaeda communications?
"Remember this one? Yes, it is the old ‘paint the Democrats as soft on terror' routine," Maddow said. "But in order to play that politicizing terrorism, anti-Democratic greatest hits, the Fort Hood case has to be terrorism. Now, regardless of how you feel about the political issue of politicizing terrorism, it's worth asking was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It's not just a political question. It's not just a judgment call. It's not just a matter of taste. It's a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer."
Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and, according to Maddow, because those charges don't indicate terrorism, the terrorism characterization should be avoided.
"And the charges today didn't include anything related to terrorism," Maddow said. "Terrorism is not just conceptual political jargon. It's a legal term and it has interestingly changed over the past few years. In order for something to be legally considered terrorism, do you have to be taking instructions from a terrorist group? Do you have to have some sort of clear political motive behind the violence? Is it about the way that you commit the crime, what sort of weapons that you use in doing? Is it about how many people that you kill in your crime? Is it about the specific type of people you target, whether they're civilian or military?"
However, as Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Command, explained, these charges are not set in stone and could change, which could altogether ruin Maddow's argument against branding Hasan a terrorist. But that wasn't stopping Maddow from sanctimoniously contending that using the word terrorism is nothing more than a strategic political maneuver and that it is an indictment of those making them, not the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding 29.
"If you're interested in more than just making political hay out of the Fort Hood case, these are the sort of legitimate questions you would want to ask before labeling this or any case an instance of terrorism," Maddow said. "Those who are calling this terrorism or making their case in large part because Maj. Hasan is a Muslim and because he's alleged to have said ‘God is great' before the shootings. And while it might make for exciting politics to argue murders by committed religious Muslims are presumptively terrorist acts, those exciting political allegations actually say a lot more about the people making them than they do about the real character of the tragedy at Fort Hood and how we, as a country, should respond to it."
Click to read the article and the comments
Classmates: Hasan defended suicide bombings, held Islamist views
from CNN
November 13, 2009
Fort Hood, Texas (CNN) -- Those who knew Nidal Malik Hasan before he was a major in the Army -- and the suspect in last week's mass killing at Fort Hood -- say he was long known for militant Islamist views.
Doctors who crossed paths with Hasan in medical programs paint a picture of a subpar student who wore his religious views on his sleeve.
Several doctors who knew Hasan spoke to CNN, but only on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation of the shooting, which left 12 soldiers and one civilian dead and dozens of other people wounded.
Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who faces 13 counts of premeditated murder, "was clearly espousing Islamist ideology" during his time as a medical student at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, one of his former classmates told CNN.
Hasan's family has revealed little about him, saying in media interviews that Hasan was a "good American" and a lifelong Muslim who complained he was harassed in the Army because of his religion.
His former classmates describe a much more militant Hasan.
His presentations for school were often laced with extremist Muslim views, one source said.
"Is your allegiance to Sharia law or the United States?" students once challenged Hasan, the source said.
"Sharia law," Hasan responded, according to the source.
The incident was corroborated by another doctor who was present.
The source recalled another instance in which Hasan was asked if the U.S. Constitution was a brilliant document. Hasan replied, "No, not particularly," according to the source.
The former classmate told CNN that he voiced concerns about Hasan to supervisors at the school.
A second former medical school colleague of Hasan said several people raised concerns about Hasan's overall competence.
Even though Hasan earned his medical degree and residency, some of his fellow students believed Hasan "didn't have the intellect" to be in the program and was not academically rigorous in his coursework.
Hasan "was not fit to be in the military, let alone in the mental health profession," this classmate told CNN. "No one in class would ever have referred a patient to him or trusted him with anything."
The first classmate echoed this sentiment.
Hasan was "coddled, accommodated and pushed through that masters of public health despite substandard performance," the classmate said. He was "put in the fellowship program because they didn't know what to do with him."
The second classmate said he witnessed at least two of Hasan's PowerPoint discussions that included what he described as extremist views.
In these presentations, which were supposed to be about health, Hasan justified suicide bombings and spoke about the persecution of Muslims in the Middle East, in the United States and in the U.S. military, the source said.
Some in the crowd rolled their eyes or muttered under their breath, he said, and others were clearly uncomfortable.
Those in the audience, which included program supervisors, did not loudly object to Hasan's presentations, but did complain to their higher-ups afterward.
The supervisors expressed "appreciation, understanding and agreement" that the complaints would be discussed, but it was unclear what action, if any, came, the source said.
When the classmate challenged Hasan personally, Hasan dodged the questions, the source said.
Despite the controversy that his schoolwork created, classmates did not view Hasan as mentally unstable or psychotic, the source said.
Questions remain over how much Hasan's behavior and actions in school were reflected in his personnel files.
Col. Kimberly Kesling, deputy commander of Clinical Services for Darnell Medical Center at Fort Hood and Hasan's supervisor at the post, told reporters last week that Hasan was doing a good job in Texas.
"As a supervisor, I am aware of the job performance of people coming into our organization, that is part of our credentialing process," Kesling said. "The types of things that were reported to me via his evaluation report were things that concerned me, but did not raise red flags toward this [the shootings] in any way, shape, or form."
"His evaluation reports said that he had some difficulties in his residency, fitting into his residency, and we worked very hard to integrate him into our practice and into our organization, and he adapted very well, was doing a really good job for us," she said.
Prompted by reports of former classmates, however, Army investigators would like to speak with people who have had contact with Hasan and who may have information about his activities and behavior, Maj. Gen Kevin Bergner, head of U.S. Army public affairs, said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates weighed in on the information surfacing about Hasan.
"I deplore the leaks that have taken place," he said on a trip to Oshkosh, Wisconsin. People are talking about "what they know, which is one small piece of the puzzle."
"They don't know whether or not what they're leaking might jeopardize a potential criminal investigation and trial," he said.
"People who have a piece of this, frankly, ought to keep quiet and let the authorities go forward on this in an organized and comprehensive way," Gates said.
Hasan came under investigation last year when his contacts with radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki were intercepted by terrorism investigators monitoring the cleric's communications, a federal law enforcement official told CNN.
An employee of the Defense Department's Criminal Investigative Services, assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, decided to drop the investigation after reviewing the intercepted communications and Hasan's personnel files.
Hasan remained hospitalized Thursday from gunshot wounds he received from two police officers who responded to last week's shooting.
CNN's Brian Todd and Ed Lavandera contributed to this report.
Click to read the article and the comments
November 13, 2009
Fort Hood, Texas (CNN) -- Those who knew Nidal Malik Hasan before he was a major in the Army -- and the suspect in last week's mass killing at Fort Hood -- say he was long known for militant Islamist views.
Doctors who crossed paths with Hasan in medical programs paint a picture of a subpar student who wore his religious views on his sleeve.
Several doctors who knew Hasan spoke to CNN, but only on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation of the shooting, which left 12 soldiers and one civilian dead and dozens of other people wounded.
Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who faces 13 counts of premeditated murder, "was clearly espousing Islamist ideology" during his time as a medical student at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, one of his former classmates told CNN.
Hasan's family has revealed little about him, saying in media interviews that Hasan was a "good American" and a lifelong Muslim who complained he was harassed in the Army because of his religion.
His former classmates describe a much more militant Hasan.
His presentations for school were often laced with extremist Muslim views, one source said.
"Is your allegiance to Sharia law or the United States?" students once challenged Hasan, the source said.
"Sharia law," Hasan responded, according to the source.
The incident was corroborated by another doctor who was present.
The source recalled another instance in which Hasan was asked if the U.S. Constitution was a brilliant document. Hasan replied, "No, not particularly," according to the source.
The former classmate told CNN that he voiced concerns about Hasan to supervisors at the school.
A second former medical school colleague of Hasan said several people raised concerns about Hasan's overall competence.
Even though Hasan earned his medical degree and residency, some of his fellow students believed Hasan "didn't have the intellect" to be in the program and was not academically rigorous in his coursework.
Hasan "was not fit to be in the military, let alone in the mental health profession," this classmate told CNN. "No one in class would ever have referred a patient to him or trusted him with anything."
The first classmate echoed this sentiment.
Hasan was "coddled, accommodated and pushed through that masters of public health despite substandard performance," the classmate said. He was "put in the fellowship program because they didn't know what to do with him."
The second classmate said he witnessed at least two of Hasan's PowerPoint discussions that included what he described as extremist views.
In these presentations, which were supposed to be about health, Hasan justified suicide bombings and spoke about the persecution of Muslims in the Middle East, in the United States and in the U.S. military, the source said.
Some in the crowd rolled their eyes or muttered under their breath, he said, and others were clearly uncomfortable.
Those in the audience, which included program supervisors, did not loudly object to Hasan's presentations, but did complain to their higher-ups afterward.
The supervisors expressed "appreciation, understanding and agreement" that the complaints would be discussed, but it was unclear what action, if any, came, the source said.
When the classmate challenged Hasan personally, Hasan dodged the questions, the source said.
Despite the controversy that his schoolwork created, classmates did not view Hasan as mentally unstable or psychotic, the source said.
Questions remain over how much Hasan's behavior and actions in school were reflected in his personnel files.
Col. Kimberly Kesling, deputy commander of Clinical Services for Darnell Medical Center at Fort Hood and Hasan's supervisor at the post, told reporters last week that Hasan was doing a good job in Texas.
"As a supervisor, I am aware of the job performance of people coming into our organization, that is part of our credentialing process," Kesling said. "The types of things that were reported to me via his evaluation report were things that concerned me, but did not raise red flags toward this [the shootings] in any way, shape, or form."
"His evaluation reports said that he had some difficulties in his residency, fitting into his residency, and we worked very hard to integrate him into our practice and into our organization, and he adapted very well, was doing a really good job for us," she said.
Prompted by reports of former classmates, however, Army investigators would like to speak with people who have had contact with Hasan and who may have information about his activities and behavior, Maj. Gen Kevin Bergner, head of U.S. Army public affairs, said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates weighed in on the information surfacing about Hasan.
"I deplore the leaks that have taken place," he said on a trip to Oshkosh, Wisconsin. People are talking about "what they know, which is one small piece of the puzzle."
"They don't know whether or not what they're leaking might jeopardize a potential criminal investigation and trial," he said.
"People who have a piece of this, frankly, ought to keep quiet and let the authorities go forward on this in an organized and comprehensive way," Gates said.
Hasan came under investigation last year when his contacts with radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki were intercepted by terrorism investigators monitoring the cleric's communications, a federal law enforcement official told CNN.
An employee of the Defense Department's Criminal Investigative Services, assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, decided to drop the investigation after reviewing the intercepted communications and Hasan's personnel files.
Hasan remained hospitalized Thursday from gunshot wounds he received from two police officers who responded to last week's shooting.
CNN's Brian Todd and Ed Lavandera contributed to this report.
Click to read the article and the comments
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Deadly denial - Fudging the facts on Fort Hood
by Ralph Peters
from The New York Post
As President Obama belatedly appears at Fort Hood today, will he dare to speak the word "terror?"
He won't use the word "Islamist." If he mentions Islam at all, it'll be to sing its praises yet again.
We've already learned that Islamist terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan attended the Northern Virginia mosque of Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, a fiery al Qaeda supporter who later fled the United States. We know that Hasan's peers, subordinates and patients repeatedly raised red flags that his superiors suppressed. We know he was a player on Islamist-extremist Web sites. The FBI's uncovering one extremist link after another.
But to call this an act of terrorism, the White House would need an autographed photo of Osama bin Laden helping Hasan buy weapons in downtown Killeen, Texas. Even that might not suffice.
Islamist terrorists don't all have al Qaeda union cards in their wallets. Terrorism's increasingly the domain of entrepreneurs and independent contractors. Under Muslim jurisprudence, jihad's an individual responsibility. Hasan was a self-appointed jihadi.
Yet we're told he was just having a bad day.
Our politically correct Army plays along. Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey won't utter the word "terrorism." The Forces Command Public Affairs Office guidance for officers never mentions "Islam" or "terror," leaving you unsure whether there was a traffic accident down at Fort Hood, or maybe an outbreak of swine flu.
Meanwhile, the media try to turn Hasan into a victim. A sickening (and amateurish) Washington Post article portrayed him as a poor, impoverished minority living in a $320-a-month rathole apartment and driving a down-market car -- as if the squalor made him a terrorist.
Squalor he chose to live in, by the way: As a major drawing added professional pay for his medical credentials, plus his benefits, Hasan made a six-figure income. And he was single, without college loans or medical bills. Has anybody asked where the money went? I'll bet a chunk of it disappeared in cash donations to hard-core Islamist causes. Will a single journalist track the missing bucks?
It gets worse: On Sunday evening, a ranking officer in Hasan's medical chain of command raced to cover her butt. Asked why the killer was promoted to major after receiving career-killer performance reviews at Walter Reed, the officer claimed that Hasan faced the same promotion board requirements as everyone else.
Liar, liar, uniform on fire: A dirty big secret in our Army has been that officers' promotion boards have quotas for minorities. We don't call them quotas, of course. But if a board doesn't hit the floor numbers, its results are held up until the list has been corrected. It's almost impossible for the Army's politically correct promotion system to pass over a Muslim physician.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the few lawmakers willing to whisper the word "terrorism," needs to call the officers who sat on Hasan's promotion board before the Senate, put them under oath, then ask if Hasan made major because of minority-quota requirements.
This corrupt (and now deadly) affirmative-action system does a severe disservice to the bulk of minority officers, who make the grade on quality and professionalism. It leaves other officers wondering if the new guy who just showed up in the unit is a "real" officer or an affirmative-action baby.
Ditto for our government's unwillingness to take on Muslim extremists on US soil. Blathering about freedom of religion, we foster hate speech. By protecting the fanatics, we betray the peaceful majority of our Muslim citizens, leaving them afraid to speak out, since the feds shield the fanatics in charge of their mosques and communities.
Let's be clear: Maj. Hasan's terrorism should not result in a witch hunt against Muslim service members. But soldiers who happen to be Muslims must be subject to the same level of scrutiny and discipline as those of other faiths.
Just as we'd expect the Army to get rid of a disruptive white supremacist, we need to cashier anyone who espouses violent Islamist extremism -- as Maj. Hasan did, again and again.
We won't. Because Islamist terrorism doesn't exist. Just ignore the dead and ask our president.
Click to read the article and the comments
from The New York Post
As President Obama belatedly appears at Fort Hood today, will he dare to speak the word "terror?"
He won't use the word "Islamist." If he mentions Islam at all, it'll be to sing its praises yet again.
We've already learned that Islamist terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan attended the Northern Virginia mosque of Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, a fiery al Qaeda supporter who later fled the United States. We know that Hasan's peers, subordinates and patients repeatedly raised red flags that his superiors suppressed. We know he was a player on Islamist-extremist Web sites. The FBI's uncovering one extremist link after another.
But to call this an act of terrorism, the White House would need an autographed photo of Osama bin Laden helping Hasan buy weapons in downtown Killeen, Texas. Even that might not suffice.
Islamist terrorists don't all have al Qaeda union cards in their wallets. Terrorism's increasingly the domain of entrepreneurs and independent contractors. Under Muslim jurisprudence, jihad's an individual responsibility. Hasan was a self-appointed jihadi.
Yet we're told he was just having a bad day.
Our politically correct Army plays along. Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey won't utter the word "terrorism." The Forces Command Public Affairs Office guidance for officers never mentions "Islam" or "terror," leaving you unsure whether there was a traffic accident down at Fort Hood, or maybe an outbreak of swine flu.
Meanwhile, the media try to turn Hasan into a victim. A sickening (and amateurish) Washington Post article portrayed him as a poor, impoverished minority living in a $320-a-month rathole apartment and driving a down-market car -- as if the squalor made him a terrorist.
Squalor he chose to live in, by the way: As a major drawing added professional pay for his medical credentials, plus his benefits, Hasan made a six-figure income. And he was single, without college loans or medical bills. Has anybody asked where the money went? I'll bet a chunk of it disappeared in cash donations to hard-core Islamist causes. Will a single journalist track the missing bucks?
It gets worse: On Sunday evening, a ranking officer in Hasan's medical chain of command raced to cover her butt. Asked why the killer was promoted to major after receiving career-killer performance reviews at Walter Reed, the officer claimed that Hasan faced the same promotion board requirements as everyone else.
Liar, liar, uniform on fire: A dirty big secret in our Army has been that officers' promotion boards have quotas for minorities. We don't call them quotas, of course. But if a board doesn't hit the floor numbers, its results are held up until the list has been corrected. It's almost impossible for the Army's politically correct promotion system to pass over a Muslim physician.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the few lawmakers willing to whisper the word "terrorism," needs to call the officers who sat on Hasan's promotion board before the Senate, put them under oath, then ask if Hasan made major because of minority-quota requirements.
This corrupt (and now deadly) affirmative-action system does a severe disservice to the bulk of minority officers, who make the grade on quality and professionalism. It leaves other officers wondering if the new guy who just showed up in the unit is a "real" officer or an affirmative-action baby.
Ditto for our government's unwillingness to take on Muslim extremists on US soil. Blathering about freedom of religion, we foster hate speech. By protecting the fanatics, we betray the peaceful majority of our Muslim citizens, leaving them afraid to speak out, since the feds shield the fanatics in charge of their mosques and communities.
Let's be clear: Maj. Hasan's terrorism should not result in a witch hunt against Muslim service members. But soldiers who happen to be Muslims must be subject to the same level of scrutiny and discipline as those of other faiths.
Just as we'd expect the Army to get rid of a disruptive white supremacist, we need to cashier anyone who espouses violent Islamist extremism -- as Maj. Hasan did, again and again.
We won't. Because Islamist terrorism doesn't exist. Just ignore the dead and ask our president.
Click to read the article and the comments
Monday, November 9, 2009
Ralph Peters Examines the Political Correctness That Killed 13 Americans at Fort Hood
from Flopping Aces
November 9, 2009
Why is the Obama Administration so reluctant to call Islamist terror by it’s name?
Obama can’t be bothered by Islamic terrorism
By Ralph Peters
New York Post
Nov. 8, 2009
…A Muslim fanatic, known to the FBI as a fan of suicide bombers and to colleagues as an opponent of our government, coolly buys weapons, heads to a military facility he knows will be packed with unsuspecting soldiers, waits for the crowd to thicken, then shouts, “Allah is great!” and guns down 51 patriots, calmly reloading among the dead and dying.
But don’t rush to judgment.
Imagine if, instead of Fort Hood, the massacre had gone down at a mosque in Detroit — carried out by a maddened Christian or Jew. Obama would’ve been aboard Air Force One before the pilots had time to file a flight plan and he would’ve been on site before the gun smoke cleared, hugging and boo-hooing and dispensing stirring rhetoric for the evening news.
But go out of his way to rally our butchered troops? Not a chance. It’s not like they’re real human beings with Ivy League degrees. When Obama got word of the attack, he didn’t even lose his fabled cool.
…Of course, this act of Islamist terrorism has been an inconvenience to a president whose administration insists there’s no such thing. Those dead and wounded soldiers are such an embarrassment. If only a Baptist or Lutheran had been the shooter, things would’ve been so much tidier.
What’s next? The White House is going to bring heavy pressure on the FBI, through Attorney General Eric Holder, to play down investigative results confirming that Maj. Nidal Hasan was motivated by his Muslim beliefs.
Instead, we’ll hear even more about the “harassment” Hasan suffered as the media toe the line laid down by the vile lead editorial in Saturday’s New York Times and how this calculating terrorist contracted PTSD from his patients.
Let me kill the harassment myth right now: Political correctness rules in today’s Army. We even protect our enemies these days. Had any soldier harassed Hasan because of his Islamist nuttiness, that soldier would’ve disappeared faster than a Franklin on a Times Square sidewalk.
Far from being harassed himself, this creep was allowed to harass the soldiers he treated for stress disorders. According to colleagues, Hasan not only argued with his patients about our wars, but preached Islam to those under his care. (Just what troubled vets needed, no doubt.)
Prejudice? You bet. In this terrorist’s favor. Nobody in Hasan’s chain of command had the sense of duty to weed this pervert out. Why? Hasan would’ve accused them of discrimination. And the officer who brought charges against Hasan would’ve been the one whose career suffered.
Since writing on this travesty in the Post and speaking out on Fox News, I’ve been deluged with supportive messages — many from soldiers outraged at the politically correct treatment of this terrorist by the media, by senior military leaders — and by the president.
How many more Americans have to die, at home and in war, before our president admits that there is, indeed, such a thing as Islamist terror? Will he ever admit that it played a role in the tragedy at Fort Hood?
Not a chance. Islam’s a religion of peace. America’s the problem. And don’t you forget it.
Many of us have scratched our heads wondering how a fine American like Flopping Aces contributor Maj. Chris Galloway could commit suicide after tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, we learn that one of the men whose job it was to help returning troops deal with the reality of their deployments was an Islamist nut case. Heads should roll here and let’s start with the apparent indifference by the Obama Administration to the problem of Islamic extremists permitted to remain at their jobs in the U.S. military.
Click to read the article and the comments
November 9, 2009
Why is the Obama Administration so reluctant to call Islamist terror by it’s name?
Obama can’t be bothered by Islamic terrorism
By Ralph Peters
New York Post
Nov. 8, 2009
…A Muslim fanatic, known to the FBI as a fan of suicide bombers and to colleagues as an opponent of our government, coolly buys weapons, heads to a military facility he knows will be packed with unsuspecting soldiers, waits for the crowd to thicken, then shouts, “Allah is great!” and guns down 51 patriots, calmly reloading among the dead and dying.
But don’t rush to judgment.
Imagine if, instead of Fort Hood, the massacre had gone down at a mosque in Detroit — carried out by a maddened Christian or Jew. Obama would’ve been aboard Air Force One before the pilots had time to file a flight plan and he would’ve been on site before the gun smoke cleared, hugging and boo-hooing and dispensing stirring rhetoric for the evening news.
But go out of his way to rally our butchered troops? Not a chance. It’s not like they’re real human beings with Ivy League degrees. When Obama got word of the attack, he didn’t even lose his fabled cool.
…Of course, this act of Islamist terrorism has been an inconvenience to a president whose administration insists there’s no such thing. Those dead and wounded soldiers are such an embarrassment. If only a Baptist or Lutheran had been the shooter, things would’ve been so much tidier.
What’s next? The White House is going to bring heavy pressure on the FBI, through Attorney General Eric Holder, to play down investigative results confirming that Maj. Nidal Hasan was motivated by his Muslim beliefs.
Instead, we’ll hear even more about the “harassment” Hasan suffered as the media toe the line laid down by the vile lead editorial in Saturday’s New York Times and how this calculating terrorist contracted PTSD from his patients.
Let me kill the harassment myth right now: Political correctness rules in today’s Army. We even protect our enemies these days. Had any soldier harassed Hasan because of his Islamist nuttiness, that soldier would’ve disappeared faster than a Franklin on a Times Square sidewalk.
Far from being harassed himself, this creep was allowed to harass the soldiers he treated for stress disorders. According to colleagues, Hasan not only argued with his patients about our wars, but preached Islam to those under his care. (Just what troubled vets needed, no doubt.)
Prejudice? You bet. In this terrorist’s favor. Nobody in Hasan’s chain of command had the sense of duty to weed this pervert out. Why? Hasan would’ve accused them of discrimination. And the officer who brought charges against Hasan would’ve been the one whose career suffered.
Since writing on this travesty in the Post and speaking out on Fox News, I’ve been deluged with supportive messages — many from soldiers outraged at the politically correct treatment of this terrorist by the media, by senior military leaders — and by the president.
How many more Americans have to die, at home and in war, before our president admits that there is, indeed, such a thing as Islamist terror? Will he ever admit that it played a role in the tragedy at Fort Hood?
Not a chance. Islam’s a religion of peace. America’s the problem. And don’t you forget it.
Many of us have scratched our heads wondering how a fine American like Flopping Aces contributor Maj. Chris Galloway could commit suicide after tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, we learn that one of the men whose job it was to help returning troops deal with the reality of their deployments was an Islamist nut case. Heads should roll here and let’s start with the apparent indifference by the Obama Administration to the problem of Islamic extremists permitted to remain at their jobs in the U.S. military.
Click to read the article and the comments
Nidal Hasan’s business card explained
By Michelle Malkin November 9, 2009 12:50 PM
SOA” stands for Soldiers of Allah. “SWT” is a related Muslim acronym: Pamela Geller explains another red flag ignored.
Related: David Horowitz diagnoses Gen. Casey’s p.c. debilitation.
You have to view this segment of the Meet the Press interview with Army chief of staff General George Casey to believe it — to believe that our army could be led by someone as incompetent in national security matters as this man showed he was, first by claiming that the army hadn’t “missed anything” in regard to the in-your-face warning signs exhibited by Major Hasan that he was a fanatical Muslim jihadist and an imminent threat to massacre our troops, by admitting that the army’s diversity policies had trumped its security policies, and worst of all by making this statement: ‘As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.’”
Once again: Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror.
Click to read the article and the comments
ABC: FBI knew Hasan tried to contact Al-Qaeda
posted at 9:30 am
on November 9, 2009
by Ed Morrissey
from Hot Air
Would it normally be considered a national-security problem if a high-ranking military officer had tried to contact an enemy of the United States during wartime? ABC News reports that the FBI knew that Major Nidal Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaeda and its associates months before Hasan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing 13 people. Did the FBI tell the Army about it? That gets rather murky:
Meanwhile, the imam with whom Hasan associated — with his own ties to the 9/11 terrorists — has issued a statement calling Hasan a “hero,” a “man of conscience” who successfully resolved the conflict of being Muslim and a member of the American armed forces. Anwar al-Awlaki now lives in Yemen, but he used to run mosques in Denver, San Diego, and Falls Church before beating feet after the 9/11 attacks. ABC reports that Awlaki runs a jihadist web site, which is where he posted his support of Hasan.
Did Hasan commit his act of terror alone or under instructions from Awlaki and his AQ associates? That’s what investigators want to know, but either way it seems that a 9/10 attitude has re-entered national-security considerations. Anyone attempting to contact al-Qaeda should have been arrested, or at the least kept away from military bases. Why did our counter-terrorist efforts leave Nidal Hasan in position to actually deploy into a combat theater if the FBI knew or even suspected these attempts to contact the enemy?
It sounds a lot like the law-enforcement model of counterterrorism that failed us so spectacularly from 1993 to 2001.
Update (AP): In case you missed WaPo’s story on Hasan over the weekend, note what he told a neighbor on the morning of the murders after handing her a Koran: “I’m going to do good work for God.”
Update (Ed): Verum Serum has more on al-Awliki and Hasan’s “heroism”.
Update II: Joe Gandelman asks the right question: “If American intelligence agencies missed the signs pre-911 and they missed a big hint pre-Foot Hood, exactly what are they missing now, as you read this post?” I would also add this: “And why are they missing it?” Because in this case, it seems as though political correctness over the feelings of Muslims has played a part in hamstringing action — and that could be the case with other potential threats, too.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments
on November 9, 2009
by Ed Morrissey
from Hot Air
Would it normally be considered a national-security problem if a high-ranking military officer had tried to contact an enemy of the United States during wartime? ABC News reports that the FBI knew that Major Nidal Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaeda and its associates months before Hasan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing 13 people. Did the FBI tell the Army about it? That gets rather murky:
U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.However, the Army certainly had enough information to know that Hasan was a problem:
It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.
One senior lawmaker said the CIA had, so far, refused to brief the intelligence committees on what, if any, knowledge they had about Hasan’s efforts.
A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, “We would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.
Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan’s statements.
“And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office…be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict,” Finell told ABC News.
Meanwhile, the imam with whom Hasan associated — with his own ties to the 9/11 terrorists — has issued a statement calling Hasan a “hero,” a “man of conscience” who successfully resolved the conflict of being Muslim and a member of the American armed forces. Anwar al-Awlaki now lives in Yemen, but he used to run mosques in Denver, San Diego, and Falls Church before beating feet after the 9/11 attacks. ABC reports that Awlaki runs a jihadist web site, which is where he posted his support of Hasan.
Did Hasan commit his act of terror alone or under instructions from Awlaki and his AQ associates? That’s what investigators want to know, but either way it seems that a 9/10 attitude has re-entered national-security considerations. Anyone attempting to contact al-Qaeda should have been arrested, or at the least kept away from military bases. Why did our counter-terrorist efforts leave Nidal Hasan in position to actually deploy into a combat theater if the FBI knew or even suspected these attempts to contact the enemy?
It sounds a lot like the law-enforcement model of counterterrorism that failed us so spectacularly from 1993 to 2001.
Update (AP): In case you missed WaPo’s story on Hasan over the weekend, note what he told a neighbor on the morning of the murders after handing her a Koran: “I’m going to do good work for God.”
Update (Ed): Verum Serum has more on al-Awliki and Hasan’s “heroism”.
Update II: Joe Gandelman asks the right question: “If American intelligence agencies missed the signs pre-911 and they missed a big hint pre-Foot Hood, exactly what are they missing now, as you read this post?” I would also add this: “And why are they missing it?” Because in this case, it seems as though political correctness over the feelings of Muslims has played a part in hamstringing action — and that could be the case with other potential threats, too.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments
Friday, September 11, 2009
Betraying our dead...Forgetting the vows we made
from The New York Post
by Ralph Peters
9/11/2009
Eight years ago today, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died.
We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot.
We've learned nothing.
Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.
Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.
Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.
Instead of acknowledging that radical Islam is the problem, we elected a president who blames America, whose idea of freedom is the right for women to suffer in silence behind a veil -- and who counts among his mentors and friends those who damn our country or believe that our own government staged the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
Instead of insisting that freedom will not be infringed by terrorist threats, we censor works that might offend mass murderers. Radical Muslims around the world can indulge in viral lies about us, but we dare not even publish cartoons mocking them.
Instead of protecting law-abiding Americans, we reject profiling to avoid offending terrorists. So we confiscate granny's shampoo at the airport because the half-empty container could hold 3.5 ounces of liquid.
Instead of insisting that Islamist hatred and religious apartheid have no place in our country, we permit the Saudis to continue funding mosques and madrassahs where hating Jews and Christians is preached as essential to Islam.
Instead of confronting Saudi hate-mongers, our president bows down to the Saudi king.
Instead of recognizing the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi cult as the core of the problem, our president blames Israel.
Instead of asking why Middle Eastern civilization has failed so abjectly, our president suggests that we're the failures.
Instead of taking every effective measure to cull information from terrorists, the current administration threatens CIA agents with prosecution for keeping us safe.
Instead of proudly and promptly rebuilding on the site of the Twin Towers, we've committed ourselves to the hopeless, useless task of rebuilding Afghanistan. (Perhaps we should have built a mosque at Ground Zero -- the Saudis would've funded it.)
Instead of taking a firm stand against Islamist fanaticism, we've made a cult of negotiations -- as our enemies pursue nuclear weapons; sponsor terrorism; torture, imprison, rape and murder their own citizens -- and laugh at us.
Instead of insisting that Islam must become a religion of responsibility, our leaders in both parties continue to bleat that "Islam's a religion of peace," ignoring the curious absence of Baptist suicide bombers.
Instead of requiring new immigrants to integrate into our society and conform to its public values, we encourage and subsidize anti-American, woman-hating, freedom-denying bigotry in the name of toleration.
Instead of pursuing our enemies to the ends of the earth, we help them sue us.
We've dishonored our dead and whitewashed our enemies. A distinctly unholy alliance between fanatical Islamists abroad and a politically correct "elite" in the US has reduced 9/11 to the status of a non-event, a day for politicians to preen about how little they've done.
We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago. We've forgotten our identification with fellow citizens leaping from doomed skyscrapers. We've forgotten the courage of airline passengers who would not surrender to terror.
We've forgotten the men and women who burned to death or suffocated in the Pentagon. We've forgotten our promises, our vows, our commitments.
We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children. We've even forgotten who attacked us.
We have betrayed the memory of our dead. In doing so, we betrayed ourselves and our country. Our troops continue to fight -- when they're allowed to do so -- but our politicians have surrendered.
Are we willing to let the terrorists win?
Ralph Peters' new thriller, "The War After Armageddon," goes on sale next Tuesday.
Click to read the article and the comments
by Ralph Peters
9/11/2009
Eight years ago today, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died.
We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot.
We've learned nothing.
Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.
Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.
Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.
Instead of acknowledging that radical Islam is the problem, we elected a president who blames America, whose idea of freedom is the right for women to suffer in silence behind a veil -- and who counts among his mentors and friends those who damn our country or believe that our own government staged the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
Instead of insisting that freedom will not be infringed by terrorist threats, we censor works that might offend mass murderers. Radical Muslims around the world can indulge in viral lies about us, but we dare not even publish cartoons mocking them.
Instead of protecting law-abiding Americans, we reject profiling to avoid offending terrorists. So we confiscate granny's shampoo at the airport because the half-empty container could hold 3.5 ounces of liquid.
Instead of insisting that Islamist hatred and religious apartheid have no place in our country, we permit the Saudis to continue funding mosques and madrassahs where hating Jews and Christians is preached as essential to Islam.
Instead of confronting Saudi hate-mongers, our president bows down to the Saudi king.
Instead of recognizing the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi cult as the core of the problem, our president blames Israel.
Instead of asking why Middle Eastern civilization has failed so abjectly, our president suggests that we're the failures.
Instead of taking every effective measure to cull information from terrorists, the current administration threatens CIA agents with prosecution for keeping us safe.
Instead of proudly and promptly rebuilding on the site of the Twin Towers, we've committed ourselves to the hopeless, useless task of rebuilding Afghanistan. (Perhaps we should have built a mosque at Ground Zero -- the Saudis would've funded it.)
Instead of taking a firm stand against Islamist fanaticism, we've made a cult of negotiations -- as our enemies pursue nuclear weapons; sponsor terrorism; torture, imprison, rape and murder their own citizens -- and laugh at us.
Instead of insisting that Islam must become a religion of responsibility, our leaders in both parties continue to bleat that "Islam's a religion of peace," ignoring the curious absence of Baptist suicide bombers.
Instead of requiring new immigrants to integrate into our society and conform to its public values, we encourage and subsidize anti-American, woman-hating, freedom-denying bigotry in the name of toleration.
Instead of pursuing our enemies to the ends of the earth, we help them sue us.
We've dishonored our dead and whitewashed our enemies. A distinctly unholy alliance between fanatical Islamists abroad and a politically correct "elite" in the US has reduced 9/11 to the status of a non-event, a day for politicians to preen about how little they've done.
We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago. We've forgotten our identification with fellow citizens leaping from doomed skyscrapers. We've forgotten the courage of airline passengers who would not surrender to terror.
We've forgotten the men and women who burned to death or suffocated in the Pentagon. We've forgotten our promises, our vows, our commitments.
We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children. We've even forgotten who attacked us.
We have betrayed the memory of our dead. In doing so, we betrayed ourselves and our country. Our troops continue to fight -- when they're allowed to do so -- but our politicians have surrendered.
Are we willing to let the terrorists win?
Ralph Peters' new thriller, "The War After Armageddon," goes on sale next Tuesday.
Click to read the article and the comments
Monday, June 1, 2009
Here's Obama's Cairo Speech - Or at least the speech he should give
June 02, 2009
from American Thinker
by Robert Spencer
As Barack Obama prepares to give his long-anticipated major address to the Islamic world from Cairo, as a public service I here offer the speech he should give:
Dear friends,
I have said that in this speech I would offer my personal commitment to engagement with the Islamic world, based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. Establishing peace between the forces of the global jihad and America and her ally Israel is something that I would very much love to do. The first thing I must acknowledge, however, is that much as I would love to see this peace dawning over the world, it is not within my power to achieve this.
That may surprise many of you. You have grown accustomed to thinking that the tensions between Muslims and the United States - tensions that boiled over on September 11, 2001 and on the occasions of many other acts of jihad terrorism as well - are entirely the fault of the United States. Americans have been told that we are hated because of our support for Israel, and because of our attempts to bring freedom and stability to the overwhelmingly Muslim people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are hated because we have spent American treasure to try to secure a better life for Muslims the world over, spending billions of dollars in aid for Egypt, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries.
I must speak honestly with you. It puzzles and pains Americans to see ourselves vilified and hated for trying to help others. Now, unlike the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Islamic entities, we seek no apologies, no restitution. We do not ask for a word of thanks for our numerous attempts to help Muslim societies become safe, prosperous places to live for all their citizens. We do not ask for your approval. But at this point we are going to cease efforts to build bridges of understanding with the Islamic world that have turned out to be fruitless, and even self-defeating.
We have showered billions on Pakistan to enable the Pakistani government to fight the Islamic jihadists, only to see a great deal of that many being funneled to those same jihadists, who are now stronger than ever.
We have tried to establish democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to see non-Muslim minorities treated worse than ever, such that they have been streaming out of Iraq in unprecedented numbers, while the few that remain in Afghanistan are subject to increasingly violent persecution.
We have brokered peace treaty after peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians - from Camp David to Oslo to the Road Map for Peace - only to see the Palestinian side again and again trample upon its commitments to recognize and respect Israel's basic right to exist.
I have offered you America's outstretched hand. In doing so I have followed a path blazed by my predecessors. But that gesture of conciliation has never been reciprocated. And so now, even as my good will is still extended to you, I must act more realistically.
Pakistan and other Muslim countries will not receive another penny of American aid unless and until they demonstrate - in a transparent and inspectable fashion - that they are working against, not abetting, the forces of the global jihad. This will include instituting comprehensive nationwide programs to teach against the jihad doctrine of Islamic supremacism, teaching that Muslims and non-Muslims must live together as equal citizens on an indefinite basis, without any attempts by Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law.
I trust you will understand that we cannot continue to fund the cutting of our own throat.
Afghanistan and Iraq must immediately guarantee the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims, or American arms will no longer devote themselves to keeping regimes in power that do not guarantee those rights.
I will call upon Israel to make no further territorial concessions. The withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 demonstrated only that such concessions whet, rather than sate, the appetites of Islamic jihadists for more concessions. The assumption that territorial concessions will bring peace ignores not only recent history, but also the stated goal of the jihadist movements arrayed against Israel: the destruction of the Jewish state.
That state is an American ally - a more reliable one than any Islamic state has ever been. And we will do whatever is necessary to preserve and defend that ally.
Our hand is outstretched, but we are not unrealistic about the nature of the world. The animus between us is as much, if not more, the result of the doctrines of jihad and Islamic supremacism as it is a result of American policy. I am telling you today that we understand this, and will be acting accordingly. Ultimately a policy based on realism will be much better for both of us than policies based on the fantasies and half-truths that have hitherto prevailed.
Thank you, and may God bless you.
Click to go to the article and read the comments
from American Thinker
by Robert Spencer
As Barack Obama prepares to give his long-anticipated major address to the Islamic world from Cairo, as a public service I here offer the speech he should give:
Dear friends,
I have said that in this speech I would offer my personal commitment to engagement with the Islamic world, based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. Establishing peace between the forces of the global jihad and America and her ally Israel is something that I would very much love to do. The first thing I must acknowledge, however, is that much as I would love to see this peace dawning over the world, it is not within my power to achieve this.
That may surprise many of you. You have grown accustomed to thinking that the tensions between Muslims and the United States - tensions that boiled over on September 11, 2001 and on the occasions of many other acts of jihad terrorism as well - are entirely the fault of the United States. Americans have been told that we are hated because of our support for Israel, and because of our attempts to bring freedom and stability to the overwhelmingly Muslim people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are hated because we have spent American treasure to try to secure a better life for Muslims the world over, spending billions of dollars in aid for Egypt, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries.
I must speak honestly with you. It puzzles and pains Americans to see ourselves vilified and hated for trying to help others. Now, unlike the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Islamic entities, we seek no apologies, no restitution. We do not ask for a word of thanks for our numerous attempts to help Muslim societies become safe, prosperous places to live for all their citizens. We do not ask for your approval. But at this point we are going to cease efforts to build bridges of understanding with the Islamic world that have turned out to be fruitless, and even self-defeating.
We have showered billions on Pakistan to enable the Pakistani government to fight the Islamic jihadists, only to see a great deal of that many being funneled to those same jihadists, who are now stronger than ever.
We have tried to establish democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to see non-Muslim minorities treated worse than ever, such that they have been streaming out of Iraq in unprecedented numbers, while the few that remain in Afghanistan are subject to increasingly violent persecution.
We have brokered peace treaty after peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians - from Camp David to Oslo to the Road Map for Peace - only to see the Palestinian side again and again trample upon its commitments to recognize and respect Israel's basic right to exist.
I have offered you America's outstretched hand. In doing so I have followed a path blazed by my predecessors. But that gesture of conciliation has never been reciprocated. And so now, even as my good will is still extended to you, I must act more realistically.
Pakistan and other Muslim countries will not receive another penny of American aid unless and until they demonstrate - in a transparent and inspectable fashion - that they are working against, not abetting, the forces of the global jihad. This will include instituting comprehensive nationwide programs to teach against the jihad doctrine of Islamic supremacism, teaching that Muslims and non-Muslims must live together as equal citizens on an indefinite basis, without any attempts by Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law.
I trust you will understand that we cannot continue to fund the cutting of our own throat.
Afghanistan and Iraq must immediately guarantee the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims, or American arms will no longer devote themselves to keeping regimes in power that do not guarantee those rights.
I will call upon Israel to make no further territorial concessions. The withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 demonstrated only that such concessions whet, rather than sate, the appetites of Islamic jihadists for more concessions. The assumption that territorial concessions will bring peace ignores not only recent history, but also the stated goal of the jihadist movements arrayed against Israel: the destruction of the Jewish state.
That state is an American ally - a more reliable one than any Islamic state has ever been. And we will do whatever is necessary to preserve and defend that ally.
Our hand is outstretched, but we are not unrealistic about the nature of the world. The animus between us is as much, if not more, the result of the doctrines of jihad and Islamic supremacism as it is a result of American policy. I am telling you today that we understand this, and will be acting accordingly. Ultimately a policy based on realism will be much better for both of us than policies based on the fantasies and half-truths that have hitherto prevailed.
Thank you, and may God bless you.
Click to go to the article and read the comments
Monday, May 25, 2009
New York City: Bomb goes off outside Starbucks
from Jihad Watch
by Robert Spencer
May 25, 2009
There is no telling who did this at this point. It could have nothing at all to do with jihad.
So why am I posting it?
Because New York Islamic jihadist Youssef al-Khattab, who calls for genocide and has threatened others, hates Starbucks (and how very interesting that he has removed the video to which Jawa linked).
Also, jihadists in London hate Starbucks.
And Sheikh al-Qaradawi hates Starbucks.
Worth watching.
"Explosion outside UES Starbucks," by Scott Curkin for WABC-TV, May 25 (thanks to the Jawa Report):
NEW YORK (WABC) -- An explosive device blew out the windows of a Starbucks coffee shop in a blast that rocked an Upper East Side neighborhood.
The loud blast was heard at the intersection of Third Avenue and East 92nd Street just before 4 a.m.
The explosion took place on 92nd and 3rd avenue.
Police are still looking for the person who left the device outside of the Starbucks.
The time of day echoed that of a pattern of unsolved early morning blasts that have occurred outside the British Consulate, the Mexican Consulate and the Armed Forces recruiting booth in Times Square over the past two years....
by Robert Spencer
May 25, 2009
There is no telling who did this at this point. It could have nothing at all to do with jihad.
So why am I posting it?
Because New York Islamic jihadist Youssef al-Khattab, who calls for genocide and has threatened others, hates Starbucks (and how very interesting that he has removed the video to which Jawa linked).
Also, jihadists in London hate Starbucks.
And Sheikh al-Qaradawi hates Starbucks.
Worth watching.
"Explosion outside UES Starbucks," by Scott Curkin for WABC-TV, May 25 (thanks to the Jawa Report):
NEW YORK (WABC) -- An explosive device blew out the windows of a Starbucks coffee shop in a blast that rocked an Upper East Side neighborhood.
The loud blast was heard at the intersection of Third Avenue and East 92nd Street just before 4 a.m.
The explosion took place on 92nd and 3rd avenue.
Police are still looking for the person who left the device outside of the Starbucks.
The time of day echoed that of a pattern of unsolved early morning blasts that have occurred outside the British Consulate, the Mexican Consulate and the Armed Forces recruiting booth in Times Square over the past two years....
Monday, May 18, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Obama Busily Appeasing Jihadists - So many Jihadists, so little time...
from Human Events.com
by Robert Spencer
04/30/2009
“To the Muslim world,” said Barack Obama in his Inaugural Address, “we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” After 100 days, how’s that going?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad summed it up best, responding contemptuously to Obama’s offer to sit down to talk without preconditions and taunting Obama for his impotence: “We say to you that you yourselves know that you are today in a position of weakness. Your hands are empty, and you can no longer promote your affairs from a position of strength.”
Ahmadinejad is also turning Obama’s campaign promise against him. When Obama indicated that he wouldn’t impose preconditions on negotiations with Iran, the Iranian saw an opening. Now, he’s apparently demanding preconditions for the talks by pressuring Obama for concessions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Iran’s Thug-In-Chief spoke like an aggressor who has spotted an appeaser, and is determined to wring from him as many concessions as possible.
How has it come to this so quickly? Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano seem to have made it a top priority of their administration’s opening act to weaken our position with the Islamic jihadists:
The Obama Administration apparently doesn’t know the difference between appeasement and diplomacy. A diplomat will sell you and your nation for a price. An appeaser will give it away without getting anything in return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)", "The Truth About Muhammad," and "Stealth Jihad" (all from Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments
by Robert Spencer
04/30/2009
“To the Muslim world,” said Barack Obama in his Inaugural Address, “we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” After 100 days, how’s that going?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad summed it up best, responding contemptuously to Obama’s offer to sit down to talk without preconditions and taunting Obama for his impotence: “We say to you that you yourselves know that you are today in a position of weakness. Your hands are empty, and you can no longer promote your affairs from a position of strength.”
Ahmadinejad is also turning Obama’s campaign promise against him. When Obama indicated that he wouldn’t impose preconditions on negotiations with Iran, the Iranian saw an opening. Now, he’s apparently demanding preconditions for the talks by pressuring Obama for concessions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Iran’s Thug-In-Chief spoke like an aggressor who has spotted an appeaser, and is determined to wring from him as many concessions as possible.
How has it come to this so quickly? Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano seem to have made it a top priority of their administration’s opening act to weaken our position with the Islamic jihadists:
• They quietly dropped the term “war on terror.” Napolitano even went so far as to say that she preferred to refer not to acts of “terrorism” but to “man-caused disasters” (NOW had no recorded comment about her sexist language). Meanwhile, a DHS report on “right-wing extremists” had no trouble referring to veterans and conservatives of all kinds as potential “terrorists.” This suggested a disquieting will to silence and demonize the political opposition, all the while regarding the real terror threat with extraordinary myopia.All this and more in just 100 days.
• Obama named Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks as an advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy. Brooks is venomously anti-Israel and once wrote that al Qaeda was “little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs,” and that the Bush Administration had only imagined that it was a “vast global threat.”
• He has tapped Harold Koh to become the legal adviser for the State Department. Koh has said that he had no objection to Sharia’s being applied to “an appropriate case” in the United States.
• In a startling breach of protocol, Obama bowed deeply to the King of Saudi Arabia, implying an obeisance that isn’t going to free us from our dependence upon the oil sheikhs any time soon.
• While on a trip to Europe, he refused to visit the American Cemetery at Normandy, but made a point of visiting a mosque in Istanbul. He expressed, in an address to the Turkish Parliament, his “deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world—including in my own country.” It’s unclear how he thinks Islam has shaped the U.S., other than to lead to innovations in airport security. His statement did nothing but embolden the jihadists who have dedicated their efforts to bringing Islamic law to the West.
• Obama said also that “the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam” -- indicating that he had no intention of addressing the ideological challenge that Islamic jihadists present to the West, or of acknowledging the fact that although the U.S. is not at war with Islam, many Muslims consider Islam to be at war with the U.S.
• Obama invited to the White House the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a 56-nation body that has declared its intention to compel the United Nations to criminalize all criticism of Islam.
• He has declared his determination to open negotiations with “moderate elements” of the Taliban, despite the fact that no such people have ever been found.
• He has declared his determination to close Guantanamo, despite the fact that over 60 former Gitmo detainees have returned to the jihad.
The Obama Administration apparently doesn’t know the difference between appeasement and diplomacy. A diplomat will sell you and your nation for a price. An appeaser will give it away without getting anything in return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)", "The Truth About Muhammad," and "Stealth Jihad" (all from Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments
Monday, March 23, 2009
Taliban Halts All Polio Vaccinations In Swat Valley of Pakistan
from the website Holger Awakensby Holger Danske
March 23, 2009
The people of Pakistan are starting to find out exactly why the people of Afghanistan are clinging to every hope that the Taliban do not regain control in their country. The Taliban in the Swat Valley (this is where the Pakistan government has signed several peace agreements, one giving the Taliban sharia law in the district) are throwing out all organizations in the area that are not Pakistani government oriented and included in that are the outside organizations that help vaccinate the children of Pakistan against polio. Here's some of the details from the Daily Times:
The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on Sunday ordered all non-governmentalAs for the specific banning of the NGO's that provide the polio vaccines, here's the brilliance of the Taliban:
organisations (NGOs) to immediately leave Swat. In an exclusive chat with IRIN,
TTP spokesman Muslim Khan said, “They come and tell us how to make lavatories in mosques and houses. I’m sure we can do it ourselves. There is no need for foreigners to tell us this.”“NGO is another name for ‘vulgarity and obscenity’,” Khan said. He said NGOs hired women who worked with men, in the field and in offices. “That is totally unIslamic and unacceptable,” he said
Infertility: When asked why the TTP was against the polio vaccination, Khan said, “The TTP is against polio vaccination because it causes infertility.”“I’m 45 and have never had one drop of the vaccine and I am still alive,” he said, adding that another reason the TTP was against polio vaccination was that the campaign was run by NGOs and the vaccine was imported.So, what does this all add up to for the children in the Swat Valley of Pakistan? Well, if a child does survive not being vaccinated from polio, they can look forward to a young life of no education since many of the schools have been destroyed and the Taliban don't allow school...and then of course, there's always the jihadi training camps for the young Pakistani boys and the forced genital mutilation for the young girls. Ask the children of Swat if they were for signing the peace agreements with these misfits.
Click to read the rest of the article and comments
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Fort Dix jihad attacker rejects American legal system, calls on judge to convert to Islam
from Jihad Watch
March 21, 2009
Not that this has anything to do with Islam!
Fort Dix Jihad Update: "Convict in Fort Dix plot case tries to oust lawyer," from Newsday, March 20 (thanks to Samir):
CAMDEN, N.J. - One of the five men convicted in the Fort Dix trial wants to fire his lawyer and waive his right to appeal.
Eljvir Duka (el-VEER' DOO'-kah) wrote the judge on Thursday that he wants to give up his rights because he rejects the American legal system. He calls it a system of "injustice."...
It's Duka's second letter to the judge in a week. Earlier, he wrote that the judge should convert to Islam.
Duka, his two brothers and two other men were convicted in December of conspiracy to kill military personnel....
Click to go to article
March 21, 2009
Not that this has anything to do with Islam!
Fort Dix Jihad Update: "Convict in Fort Dix plot case tries to oust lawyer," from Newsday, March 20 (thanks to Samir):
CAMDEN, N.J. - One of the five men convicted in the Fort Dix trial wants to fire his lawyer and waive his right to appeal.
Eljvir Duka (el-VEER' DOO'-kah) wrote the judge on Thursday that he wants to give up his rights because he rejects the American legal system. He calls it a system of "injustice."...
It's Duka's second letter to the judge in a week. Earlier, he wrote that the judge should convert to Islam.
Duka, his two brothers and two other men were convicted in December of conspiracy to kill military personnel....
Click to go to article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
