Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Radical Islam, Europe and More

Extremist Islam is very vocal throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and other places, in spite of not being mainstream Islam. It also attracts a fair amount of converts, what is the attraction? Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty featured the following interview on the subject:

Islam: Radicalism In Europe Reflects ‘Spiritual Void’

Germany - Federal policemen lead off an alleged terror suspect (2-R) at the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in Karlsruhe, 05Sep2007
What makes converts to Islam, such as two of the suspects recently arrested in Germany, so susceptible to radicalism?
(epa)

September 16, 2007 (RFE/RL) — The recent arrest in Vienna of three alleged Al-Qaeda sympathizers — all Austrian citizens — has again raised concerns across Europe about the threat posed by homegrown Islamic extremists.

Edwin Bakker, head of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations and an expert on the subject, spoke with RFE/RL correspondent Valentinas Mite about the threat of Islamist terrorism in Europe and about why some Europeans choose to convert to radical Islam.

RFE/RL: There are millions of Muslims in Europe who have either migrated to the continent or are the children of earlier migrants. In their overwhelming majority, they have no connection to extremism. But a few appear to be turning to radical brands of Islam. Who are they?

Edwin Bakker: [They are] youngsters who are attracted to a very strict interpretation of Islam, a very militant Islam, partly as a consequence of discrimination, their backward socioeconomic position, but most of all by their search for identity. They are in Europe. They are very much integrated — they speak Dutch, Danish, German or whatever [is] the language of their country, but they are not accepted as Dutch, Danish, German, etc. So many of them are seeking a new identity as being a Muslim, not a Moroccan, not a Turk or whatever. They go and look for material on the Internet and they find this very radical and very appealing Salafi stream of Islam, which is very strict, very extreme.

RFE/RL: The problem of religious radicalism does not seem to exist among other immigrant groups, like the Chinese or Vietnamese communities. What makes people with Islamic roots potentially more radical than other migrants?

Bakker: There is this idea in the air, there is this hype, there is this 9/11 appeal to youngsters; this ideology is there. And it is not the case for China. If you are Chinese in Europe, you still can be proud to be from China. China does not have this perception [that a] crusade [is being waged] against China or this perception of a fight. These Muslims identify themselves as Muslims and then they identify themselves as victims of aggression against Muslims, for instance in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq. So this identity is linked to identifying with [perceived] fights against Islam.

RFE/RL: But Iranians living in Europe, who are Muslims, seem to integrate well in European society and generally have not isolated themselves as much as people coming from the Middle East or Pakistan. Why is there such a difference?

Bakker: The Iranians who came to Europe are mostly highly educated. So there are many professors, doctors among them. And that is how they integrated better. They integrated into their new communities, communities of scholars, communities [of other professionals], and so on. And their numbers are a little bit smaller so they cannot organize themselves in such close-knit communities. There is also a big difference between Iranians and other [Muslims in Europe], Moroccans and Turks, for example. Most Moroccans [although they live] in Europe [tend to] marry somebody from their [home] village. Iranians marry either Iranians who also fled to Europe or they marry local [Europeans].

RFE/RL: How can you explain the fact that some Europeans by origin are converting to radical brands of militant Islam? Can we speak about some tendencies in this case?

Bakker: We have good contacts with, for instance, local police working in troublesome neighborhoods [in the Netherlands], so they see the same problem among Muslims but also among non-Muslims. This is a sense of [lack] of identity, purpose [in life] — these kind of things. I think that this holds [true] for many Western European countries.

There are also quite a number of women, actually, who convert to Islam. It’s of course something new. It is an underdog religion, so it has an appeal to some people, who are attracted by such a religion, that is so much bashed and therefore perhaps more interesting to them.

RFE/RL: What trends in Islam do converts usually choose?

Bakker: I studied [the cases] of all those [Muslims] who have been arrested and have been convicted of terrorism in Europe and about 5 or 6 percent are converts. Actually, many groups have at least one or two converts among them. In general, there is a problem with converts in that they want to overcompensate for the fact that they are new to a community. They want to be “holier than the pope.” And this is a general phenomenon with radicals or with converts.

RFE/RL: But radicals make up only a very small part of all Muslims. Why don’t more European converts choose mainstream Islam?

Bakker: Because they are new to the religion, they are very susceptible to very radical interpretations. They don’t know the other interpretations. So if you are new to Islam, you are not familiar with the fact that Islam is a very complicated religion, that it has a lot of different approaches. And if you are in the hands of the Salafi — this very fundamental, traditional, puritan group — you have no checks and balances, and there is nobody who would tell you, “But that’s not true.” So you are falling into the hands of the most radical views or radical preachers. So being new to religion also does not give you the mind-set and the knowledge to resist very extreme views.

Disenchantment, low self esteem, and vulnerability are the perfect personality ingredients that Salafists look for in potential converts. By bringing these individuals into a highly disciplined environment, by forcing strict rules of conduct upon those who heretofore had little purpose to their lives, these individuals are given a much craved for sense of belonging and self worth. Such recruits then become as, or more, fanatical than their mentors. What do they get for their troubles? Most are considered fully expendable by the extremists they’ve joined, mere instruments in the furtherance of the group’s agenda. CNN has an article on that very expendability, as evidenced in the case of an idealistic foreign fighter for Al-Qaeda in Iraq:

Failed suicide bomber turns on al Qaeda

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Ahmad al Shayea is the rarest of truck bombers — he survived his suicide mission in Iraq even though the blast from his bomb was strong enough to kill 12 bystanders.

Ahmad al Shayea survived his truck bomb attack, but not without scarring to his face and hands.

Al Shayea, who was disfigured during the attack, claims al Qaeda tricked him into becoming a bomber by asking him to deliver a tanker truck, which they had rigged with a bomb.

“They told me to take it to an address in Baghdad. As soon as I got there the truck exploded,” said the native of Saudi Arabia. He survived by jumping out of the truck.

Al Shayea renounced terrorism and returned to Saudi Arabia, where he works to convince would-be insurgents and terrorists to give up their deadly ways.

“I think God took me out of death to show others what can happen,” he told CNN. “If you join al Qaeda, they will use you, and maybe you will die.” Video Hear why al Shayea turned his back on al Qaeda »

Al Qaeda propaganda videos glorify so-called foreign fighters in Iraq like al Shayea. It has recruited them from countries all across the Middle East.

Some Iraqi officials say more Saudis than any other nationality have responded to al Qaeda’s call. Saudi officials and the U.S. military deny that claim. But Saudi sources do admit that more than 800 young Saudis have gone to Iraq to fight. That’s far more than the Saudi government has acknowledged until now.

Since 9/11, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, the oil rich kingdom has been accused of spreading radicalism. It’s a claim that stings this longtime U.S. ally, which also finds itself in al Qaeda’s cross hairs.

So now, Saudi officials say they are escalating their fight against homegrown al Qaeda militants. Former insurgents and terrorists like al Shayea are their chief weapon in the battle for the hearts and minds of young Saudis.

“The reality behind it is the religious misunderstanding of Islam, so we have to correct the ideas,” said Dr. Turki Al-Otayan, a psychologist.

Al Shayea and hundreds of other Saudis who were aligned with terrorists are being re-educated in prisons and rehabilitation centers. They are taught that al Qaeda’s emphasis on a violent approach to Islam is wrong.

The program offers early release from prison. It’s available only to captured jihadis who demonstrate a willingness to change over the course of repeated interviews with specialists. Al Shayea said he was questioned by security forces, then clerics, then psychologists.

“They looked at my mood, listened to me. They were nice,” he adds.

Al-Otayan said the review is thorough.

“We make sure he understands dialogue. We make sure he is not just lying. So it is not an easy job I can assure you,” he said.

The Saudi government says more than 1,000 former al Qaeda recruits have been through the program. Seven hundred of them are now free. Critics, mainly from the country’s security forces, fear mistakes could allow some al Qaeda fighters back on the street.

A native of Saudi Arabia, al Shayea was just 19 when he went to Iraq to fight for al Qaeda against American forces. He was angered, he said, by scenes of U.S. troops killings his fellow Muslims.

“I went to Iraq with Saudi men because jihad is a duty for every Muslim,” he said. “I went to Iraq to fight the jihad and kill Americans.”

He was hoping to take up arms against Americans, but said he never envisioned himself as a suicide bomber. After his truck bomb exploded, al Shayea was captured and paraded on Iraqi TV. Burned and bandaged, he was blamed for the death of 12 bystanders. He confessed.

Iraqi security officials deported him to Saudi Arabia. Today, with the backing of the Saudi government, al Shayea gets his anti-al Qaeda message out on fliers that include pictures of him before and after his bombing. He has become the anti-Al Qaeda example.

“I learned my lesson, and others will learn as well,” he said.

It is one thing to take someone, however misguided, who is ready and willing to become a suicide bomber and another very different one to dupe someone into becoming a suicide bomber. The manipulation of the individual is repulsive in both cases! To take an unwitting recruit and send him to a certain death and then claim and praise him as someone who “willingly” gave his life for Allah, shows that these extremists, these hate filled barbarians, not only have contempt for the life of their target(s), but for the life of their own recruits as well. Such cynicism, such disregard for human life, is totally incompatible with the mores of the Western world and yet The Brussels Journal tells us:

The EU Wants to Increase Muslim Immigration and Internet Censorship

A few months ago, the EU’s Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini worried about what to do with illegal immigration. To no-one’s surprise, he appears to have settled for surrendering and making it legal. The skilled glossocrat Frattini has already banned the use of the phrase Islamic terrorism: “You cannot use the term ‘Islamic terrorism,’” he insisted. “People who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the name of this religion.” He now thinks we shouldn’t use the word “immigration,” either, we should talk about “mobility.” Moreover, the “Asian” and “African” immigrants in this case generally come from the predominantly Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, with some additional ones from Pakistan and similar nations. The EU has thus decided to flood Europe with tens of millions of Muslims, at the same time as peaceful Europeans demonstrating against the Islamization of Europe were brutally harassed by the police in the EU capital of Brussels.

In the future, the next time Islamic Jihad terrorists, I mean mobile workers enriching us with their presence when they are not abusing Islam, massacre scores of Europeans, the EU will assure us that they did everything in their power to stop this, and then they will continue facilitating the Islamization of the continent as if nothing has happened. The sensible option would be to point out that we had no Muslim terrorism in Western Europe before we had Muslim immigration. The key to ending Muslim terrorism should then logically be to end and preferably reverse Muslim immigration. The EU’s solution to this is to continue and even increase Muslim immigration while stopping web searches for the word “bomb.” The scary part is that once the infrastructure and principle of Internet censorship has become firmly established, it could be widened to include other kinds of illegal or unwanted activities, for instance “racist” and “xenophobic” websites criticizing Islam or mass immigration. And make no mistake about it: They will do so. They are probably planning this as we speak.

Notice how EU officials announce sweeping and potentially irreversible changes, proclaim that they are “inevitable” and that we may just as well adapt and get used to it. Resistance is futile. This is a lie and it always has been. The entire European Union has been created by such lies, repeated year after year. The gradual destruction of formerly independent nation states was carefully planned and executed, and the introduction of mass immigration from non-Western countries has been and still is a crucial component of this plan. Notice how Frattini specifically singles out Italy, which has so far received less immigration than many other countries in Western Europe, for attention. He also mentions Hungary, one of the newer EU members from the former Communist bloc, meaning that these countries, too, are now supposed to receive a dose of Multicultural diversity, whether they like it or not. The purpose of this immigration, not just between European countries but from Muslim and non-EU countries as well, is to dilute and destroy the established nation states and their culture, until the natives in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Britain, Spain etc. are too weak and demoralized to resist the creation of a pan-European superstate. Opposition to this policy should be banned as racism and hate speech.

Muslim immigration is destabilizing the entire European continent. Since the EU, which should more properly be called the anti-European Union, is facilitating this, the continued existence of the EU now constitutes a mortal threat to the very survival of European civilization. Every day the EU exists brings Europe one step closer to the grave.

EU told to accept 20m migrant workers
The Financial Times, 12 September

Europe must relax its immigration controls and open the door to an extra 20m workers during the next two decades, the European Union’s justice chief will say on Friday. Franco Frattini, justice commissioner, is to tell the bloc’s immigration ministers in Lisbon that the EU should stop erecting barriers and instead build safe pathways for Africans and Asians who risk their lives heading to the continent to find a job. “We have to look at immigration not as a threat but – when well-managed, and that is our new task – as an enrichment and as an inescapable phenomenon of today’s world,” he will say. He will suggest the word immigration should be dropped in favour of “mobility”. Germany, Italy and Hungary, with their ageing populations, are most in need of immigrants. The reforms could lead to a more than doubling of the EU’s foreign-born population by 2030.[…]

I guess that in the great humanitarian mind of EU’s Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini, the only way to solve a problem is to aggravate it! Such idiocy stems from arrogance, the elitist arrogance of Socialists who still persist in appeasing, appeasing, appeasing. Somehow they are so enamored of their bankrupt, disproved ideas that they believe that once these IslamoFascists experience enlightened Europe, they will change their ways and quickly integrate. It hasn’t happened, it will not happen!

These European Union politicians seem to ascribe to their followers a code of conduct as that exemplified by the Age of Chivalry in Medieval times, but without the religious or the honor aspect. It hardly worked then, the Arthurian legends notwithstanding, It is even more unlikely to work now especially with people who despise the West, with people to whom nothing is sacred as long as a despicable maneuver furthers their goal. But… this arrogant socialist elitism running the EU is blindly leading Europe and the West towards a bloody war whose outcome is dreadfully uncertain…

Chaim

Crossposted at: Freddom's Cost

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Friday, March 02, 2007

World Trade Towers: a Socialist Fiasco

by Thomas E. Brewton

We can count on government planners to produce the most inefficient projects conceivable by the human mind. Manhattan’s Freedom Tower, intended to rise on the site of 9/11 destruction, is an egregious example.
Read More...


A recent Bloomberg News article reports, “ ‘The Freedom Tower isn’t economically feasible under present circumstances,’ said Douglas Durst, a third-generation New York developer whose company is building Bank of America’s new offices in midtown Manhattan.”

New York City, the nation’s most socialistically ingrained municipality, in the nation’s premier socialist state, has a long history of public works boon-doggles, of which the Freedom Tower is just the latest.

One of the earliest was the city’s efforts in the 1920s to compete with, and to destroy economically, the privately-owned IRT West Side subway lines. The chosen vehicle was Mayor Jimmy Walker’s IND subway system (famous, if nothing else, for Duke Ellington’s theme song, “Take the A Train"). In the end, both lines were economically unsustainable without city subsidies.

This set in motion the city’s take-over of all of the privately owned subway lines and ushered in the era of cronyism between the city’s socialistically-inclined politicians and the Transport Workers Union (TWU), founded and led by Mike Quill, an open and proud member of the Communist Party.

The World Trade Towers (WTC) destroyed by Al Queda on 9/11 were themselves the product of a collectivist government-planning project, this time under the impetus of New York State. Predictably they were an economic disaster for most of their first ten years.

Originally, as the name suggested, only tenants engaged in international trade were to be eligible to rent space in the WTC. By the end of the extraordinarily lengthy development process that characterizes most government works, WTC space couldn’t be given away at any price. There simply weren’t enough potential tenants, a fact that the city’s private owners and developers of commercial office space had loudly trumpeted from the beginning. Especially rankling had been the plan to offer subsidized rents on buildings exempt from most real estate taxes. The WTC’s announced rents were so low that they would undercut the commercial rents required by privately-owned office buildings to pay taxes, operating expenses, and mortgage debt service.

Why then were the WTC towers built? The answer appears to lie at the doorstep of liberal-socialist-progressive Republican, and New York Governor, Nelson Rockefeller.

Rocky’s brother David Rockefeller was high up in the management ranks of the Chase Manhattan Bank, which in 1957 began construction of its new headquarters, the large Pine Street office tower near the WTC site. In 1959 Citibank announced plans to build a new office tower at 399 Park Avenue, several miles north of the Wall Street area, in midtown. Citibank’s headquarters were to be moved from 55 Wall Street, a block away from the new Chase headquarters.

Street gossip has it that David Rockefeller appealed to his brother, Governor Nelson Rockefeller, to do something to anchor tenants in lower Manhattan around Wall Street in order to protect Chase’s huge investment in its new building. In any case, with Governor Rockefeller as the driving force, the New York State Urban Development Corporation (UDC) came into existence in 1968, with the announced aim of revitalizing parts of New York City, the Wall Street area being its first target.

Note that in its privately planned and financed development, Citibank announced its intentions and completed its new headquarters on Park Avenue within three years. 399 Park Avenue opened for business in 1961. An additional nine years would pass before the socialistically-planned UDC was able to complete the first WTC tower in 1970.

The WTC ultimately was a commercial success, but not because of the UDC and public-planning. Wall Street’s financial community enjoyed a booming revival in the mid-1970s, along with the advent of desktop computers that brought thousands of young traders and investment bankers to firms to service the sophisticated needs of a market coming to be dominated by institutional investors – the pension funds, mutual funds, and life insurance companies. Not only was the WTC a success, but gleaming new office towers replaced the 19th century warehouses along Water Street and Front Street. By that time, the WTC had abandoned its tenancy eligibility restrictions and leased space to all comers, at market rents.

Since 9/11/01, we have witnessed a repeat of the socialist state-planning that characterized the original WTC development process. Every part of the process takes far too long, every special interest group demands a voice in the planning, and the whole thing has been handled completely backwards.

New York Governor George Pataki, another Eastern-establishment liberal masquerading as a conservative, first staged a competition among architects, in effect, to produce the most outlandish designs imaginable. From those architectural plans, all else was to follow.

In the real world of successful commercial office building development, that is upside down. The process runs something like this: first, a developer becomes aware of the possible availability of a development site and estimates the costs to acquire control of the site; second, based on his experience and knowledge of local construction trades, materials costs, etc., he estimates the cost per square foot to build the office building.

A critical part of the estimate is the area of leasable square feet that he can build on the site. Given Manhattan’s extraordinary land costs, the developer is always pushed toward building the tallest possible structure, with the most regularly shaped (therefore useable and leasable) floors. A trade off is the increasing amount of unleasable core area needed for elevators, which increases as the building height rises, necessitating more elevator shafts. In a very strong office market, building owners can get away with allocating such space proportionally to tenants and charging rent thereon, but in a competitive office market period of the business cycle, tenants will be influenced by the area of actually usable office space in ratio to their total rent bills.

In the current Freedom Tower fiasco, architects seemed to ignore such rudimentary requirements and fantasized twisting and angular floors that would increase the need for elevator core space while reducing the useable space in the upper floors.

Third, again using his experience, the developer estimates the likely rents per square foot obtainable in that market, which of course, is importantly influenced by the expected level of demand for office space at that location.

Fourth, the developer pulls all the numbers together to estimate the total development and construction costs per square foot, the likely taxes and operating expenses per square foot, and the expected average rents per square foot. From this he estimates the cash flow per square foot that will be available for mortgage debt service. That cash flow per square foot must be sufficient to cover mortgage debt service, at whatever interest rates are estimated to prevail at the time, and to provide an acceptable rate of return on the amount of equity capital that will be needed to cover the gap between mortgage debt and total development and building costs.

Only then does he bring in architects to design the structure, and those he employs are specialists in making esthetics conform to economic reality.

New York’s collectivist state-planners took no cognizance of any of that and focused from the get-go on creating something that Manhattan’s liberal esthetes would declare art-worthy. Worse, the process has dragged on for six years already, with no starting date in sight. Meanwhile, private developers have already built competitive office structures around the site, reducing the potential demand for office space, when and if the Freedom Tower project ever takes off.

But this is just the sort of thing that liberal-progressives love. After all, the focus of state-planning is not to produce economically feasible results, but to redistribute wealth in accord with materialistic social justice.

The standard government-planning way to do this is to spend the maximum possible amount of public funds, for the longest possible time, and employ the maximum possible number of unionized workers at the highest imaginable wages. This promotes full employment for voters and life-time tenure for politicians holding the benefits slop buckets at the public pig-feeding trough.





Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.
The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of
writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.


His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Labels: , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Saturday, January 27, 2007

How the left led us into 9/11

The LA Times
The Clinton and Carter administrations made the U.S. look like a weak, attractive target for terrorists.

In considering a funding cutoff for U.S. troops in Iraq, the liberal leadership in Congress runs the risk of making the United States more vulnerable to future attacks, not just in the Middle East but here at home. To understand this, it's not enough to revisit the factors that led to the Iraq invasion. We must consider the roots of 9/11 itself. Only by understanding the policies that sowed the seeds of 9/11 can we intelligently decide how best to proceed in fighting the war on terror.

Pundits on the left say that 9/11 was the result of a "blowback" of resistance from the Islamic world against U.S. foreign policy. At first glance, this seems to make no sense. American colonialism in the Middle East? The U.S. has no history of colonialism there. Washington's support for unelected dictatorial regimes in the region? The Muslims can't be outraged about this, because there are no other kinds of regimes in the region. U.S. support for Israel and wars against the Muslims? Yes, but the U.S. has frequently fought on the side of the Muslims, as in Afghanistan in the 1980s or in the Persian Gulf War.

But in a sense the liberal pundits are right. The U.S. made two gigantic foreign policy blunders in recent decades that did sow the seeds of 9/11. What the liberals haven't recognized is that these blunders were the direct result of their policies and actions, and were carried out by Democratic presidents — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

To understand this, we need a little perspective. Radical Islam became a global force in 1979, when it captured its first major state, Iran. Before that, radical organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood were fighting losing battles to overthrow their local governments. This changed with the success of the Khomeini regime in Iran. The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was the first Muslim leader to describe the U.S. as the "Great Satan" and to counsel martyrdom and jihad against it. Iran continues to be a model for radical Muslims.

Khomeini's ascent to power was aided by Carter's policies. Carter came into office stressing his support for human rights. His advisors told him that he could not consistently support the shah of Iran, who had secret police and was widely accused of violating human rights. The administration began to withdraw its support and finally pulled the rug out from under the shah, forcing him to step down.

The result was Khomeini, whose regime was vastly more tyrannical than the shah's. The Khomeini revolution provided state sponsorship for Islamic radicalism and terrorism and paved the way for Osama bin Laden and 9/11.

Clinton's policies also helped to provoke 9/11. After the Cold War, leading Islamic radicals returned to their home countries. Bin Laden left Afghanistan and went back to Saudi Arabia; Ayman Zawahiri returned to Egypt. They focused on fighting their own rulers — what they termed the "near enemy" — in order to establish states under Islamic law. But in the mid- to late 1990s, these radicals shifted strategy. They decided to stop fighting the near enemy and to attack the "far enemy," the U.S.

The world's sole superpower would seem to be much more formidable than local Muslim rulers such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden argued, however, that the far enemy was actually weaker and more vulnerable. He was confident that when kicked in their vital organs, Americans would pack up and run. Just like in Vietnam. Just like in Mogadishu.

Bin Laden saw his theory of American weakness vindicated during the Clinton era. In 1993, Islamic radicals bombed the World Trade Center. The Clinton administration did little. In 1996, Muslim terrorists attacked the Khobar Towers facility on a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia. No response. In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Clinton responded with a few perfunctory strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. These did no real harm to Al Qaeda and only strengthened the perception of American ineptitude. In 2000, Islamic radicals bombed the U.S. destroyer Cole. Again, the Clinton team failed to act. By his own admission, Bin Laden concluded that his suspicion of American pusillanimity and weakness was correct. He became emboldened to plot the 9/11 attacks.

Still, the 2001 attacks might have been averted had the Clinton administration launched an effective strike against Bin Laden in the years leading up to them. Clinton has said he made every effort to get Bin Laden during his second term. Yet former CIA agent Michael Scheuer estimates that there were about 10 chances to capture or kill Bin Laden during this period and that the Clinton people failed to capitalize on any of them.

Between 1996 and mid-2000, Bin Laden was not in deep hiding. He gave sermons in Kandahar's largest mosque. He talked openly on his satellite phone. He also granted a number of media interviews: in 1996, with author Robert Fisk; in 1997, with Peter Arnett of CNN; in 1998, with John Miller of ABC News; in 1999, with a journalist affiliated with Time magazine. Isn't it strange that all these people could find Bin Laden but the Clinton administration couldn't?

Two lessons can be drawn from these sorry episodes. The first one, derived from Carter's actions, is: In getting rid of the bad regime, make sure that you don't get a worse one. This happened in Iran and could happen again, in Iraq, if leading Democrats in Congress have their way. The second lesson, derived from Clinton's inaction, is that the perception of weakness emboldens our enemies. If the Muslim insurgents and terrorists believe that the U.S. is divided and squeamish about winning the war on terror, they are likely to escalate their attacks on Americans abroad and at home. In that case, 9/11 will be only the beginning.

By Dinesh D'Souza, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is the author, most recently, of "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11."
January 18, 2007


I almost couldn't believe this was published in the LA Times. I've been saying this for years .... just so you know ....

h/t Perish the Thought

The Path to 9/11
Digg this here
Crossposted at Blue Star Chronicles

Labels: , , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Friday, January 26, 2007

The Path to 9-11

Remember the movie The Path to 9/11? Remember that the democrats threatened ABC's broadcast license if they aired the movie? ABC finally edited the movie so that they could air it without the part that the Clinton administration didn't want in there.

Hannity is going to air the unedited version on Sunday night on Fox
.

Unseen footage from the controversial ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11 has been obtained by Fox News and will be shown Sunday on Hannity's America.

The scene shows Sandy Berger, played by actor Devin Dunn, refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite a request from CIA officials, who said he was in their sights.

Berger was a national security adviser to President Clinton. The footage, which was expunged before it aired last September, was shown by the docudrama's senior producer and writer/producer at a World Affairs Council event at California State University. The footage was shown as Fox cameras rolled.

It was interesting to me watching the news today. With the Sandy Berger/Clinton scandal swirling around - all the network news focused on was Carl Rove and counting the bodies of American Soldiers. That's why I hate the network news.

The progressive blogs are predictably having a hissy fit. A quick look around the blogsphere and I can tell you they are having a bona fide meltdown. Remember how mad Clinton got when the movie first aired? The reaction is enough to let you know there is something they don't want us to know.

Hot Air has the edited and unedited videos.

Suitably Flip wonders how Secretary Gonzales is coming with that polygraph.

After watching the videos at Hot Air Rounds Out wonders ....
I didn't watch this when originally aired. But I can see now why the MSM was up in arms to the point of frenzy over this.

Do we really want more Clinton foreign policy?

The Hillary Project notes that Bill Clinton is still trying to obstruct the truth from being revealed regarding his unwillingness to deal with Osama bin Laden.

So has all this cover-up been to just protect Bill Clinton, or has this also been to protect Hillary’s chance of becoming President? The latter now seems more evident.

Patterico:
I am confident about one thing though, the really important part of the Fox broadcast won’t be the film footage that they show - it will be the subsequent interview with writer Cyrus Nowrasteh and former CIA agent Michael Scheuer. They will no doubt be very effective in defending their respective work in light of recent revelations. That part will be informative and potentially important.


crossposted at Blue Star Chronicles

Labels: , , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Thursday, December 14, 2006

FBI: Cleric's Illness May Spark Attack


The blind leading the blind to avenge the blind.

Washington-- The health of terrorist cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheik, is deteriorating -- renewing fears that his death in prison could trigger an attack on the United States, officials said Thursday.


In a video in September marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, al-Qaida's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahri, cited the continuing imprisonment of the sheik.


"I call on every Muslim to make use of every opportunity afforded him to take revenge on America for its imprisonment of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman," he said.


Rahman was sentenced to life in prison after his 1995 conviction for his advisory role in a plot to blow up New York City landmarks, including the United Nations.




"Go get yourself some cheap sunglasses...." Do you think this is where Billy Gibbons got the look? Somehow I don't think so but...you never know...

Also at Hotair.com.

Labels: , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Praying On Planes

The result of 19 Muslims praying --or should I say preying-- on planes.
Six Imam's stand and pray on a plane in Minneapolis only to be removed and questioned. Word is that their civil rights were violated. What about the rights of the other passengers to not feel threatened?

According to Allahpundit at Hotair.com, "CAIR’s promising a formal complaint in the morning to protest law enforcement’s inexplicable suspicions about a group of men onboard a commercial flight rising out of their seats in tandem and praying to Allah."

A commentor at Hotair put it well...

If I was on that plane and a group started chanting to Allah, it would be the white-knuckled flight from hell.

I'm all for prayer but on a plane a quiet "Hail Mary" or a private "OM" is quite enough. Heck I'll even go along with "Allah Akbar" as long as I don't have to SEE OR HEAR it.

Douglas Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network links it to a larger Islamic Ideological Jihad already being waged.





Whatever it is lets hope Muslim civil rights protests...shall we call them "stand ups" rather than "sit ins"... don't shut down the airline industry over the holiday. My personal thoughts? Shut it down because I remember the "magnificent 19"...these Muslims who are enjoying the freedoms of our society probably remember them too--in the worst way, I presume.

Labels: , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Monday, November 13, 2006

Hearing Muslim Voices

Seyyed Hossein NasrFrom Speaking of Faith:

September 7, 2006

» Download (mp3, 53:10)
» Listen Now (RealAudio, 53:00)
» Podcast


Dramatic headlines convey a predominantly violent picture of global Islam. But, during the past five years, Muslim guests on SOF have conveyed a thoughtful, questing, diverse, and compelling faith. Step back with us and hear these voices from the traditional and evolving center of Islam. And, Krista speaks with Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an esteemed Muslim scholar who brings a broad religious and historical perspective to hard questions about Islam and the West that have lingered uncomfortably in American life since 9/11.

Although I do not agree with some of the guest's comments regarding America's complicity in Islamic Hate, I found this to be quite informative...after all I will take any Muslim moderate voice (?) I can. Well worth a listen.

Labels: , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Sunday, October 01, 2006

New Mohammed Atta Video Released


Michelle Malkin and HotAir.com are blogging about the release of the Mohammed Atta martyrdom video.

Lucky for me it came without sound. Check out the Cat Stevens/Mohammed Atta mash-up video, "Atta Catta".

Oh Joy! Yusuf Islam, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens is releasing a new album.

LONDON — Yusuf Islam, formerly known as pop singer Cat Stevens, is set to release his first commercial album nearly three decades after he reverted to Islam and withdrew from the pop world, dismissing criticism that returning to the music industry is a betrayal of his Muslim faith.


"It's me, so it's going to sound like that of course ... This is the real thing," Islam was quoted Sunday, October1, as saying by Agence France-Presse (AFP).


"As long as it conforms to moral norms and doesn’t divert a person from his or her duties in worshipping Allah Most High, then it has its place in the culture of Islam."




Did he say the culture of Islam? Oh no he di'int! LOL! Careful what you sing, Yusuf. You may end up looking at your vocal chords.

This video is "Banned on Youtube.com".

Labels: , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Contributors

Jihadi Du Jour is actively looking for contributors who are concerned about America's future and are willing to research and post about the fight against Islamic Jihad. If you are interested email us at jihadidujour@yahoo.com

RASTAMAN
MEDIAN SIB
CAREN E
OBADIAH
U. INFIDEL
LAYLA
TODD
BERNIE
DEBBIE

HEIDI

JAY
JAMES
KATHY
JOHN
JOE S.

BETH
ROBERT

DARRELL
CHAIM

Guests: Stan Smith | Leonard Magruder | Random Thoughts @ TROP | Brigitte Gabriel | Annaqed The Critic | Miss Kelly | CENTCOM

Courtesy of Gabrielle--download and use freely

Blogroll Buzz! | Sponsored Buzz!

Featured video


And Blip.TV

Most wanted





Member:
NowPublic