Obama Administration Blaming Deaths of U.S. Troops On … U.S. Troops

October 1, 2012 at 9:00 am (Afghanistan, Friendly Fire, George W. Bush, Islam, Martin Dempsey, Military, Pentagon, President Obama, Sensitivity Training, U.S. Troops)

In case you were wondering, according to the Pentagon, American troops would be killed far less frequently if only they would better understand the religious sensitivities of Afghan forces.

If you’re an ardent supporter of American media, then you probably missed the news that the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan rose to 2,000 this past weekend.

This of course, would have been the lead story on every news outlet in America had it occurred between the years 2000 and 2008.

But this is now Obama’s war, and there should be no reporting of significant milestones because … well … because he has put an end to these unjust wars.  And also, he’s the first black President.  Or something.

Regardless, here is the grim news as reported by the Huffington Post:

A firefight broke out between U.S. forces and their Afghan army allies in eastern Afghanistan Sunday, killing two Americans and three Afghan soldiers and pushing the number of U.S. troops killed in the long-running war 2,000.
The fighting started Saturday when what is believed to have been a mortar fired by insurgents struck a checkpoint set up by U.S. forces in Wardak province, said Shahidullah Shahid, a provincial government spokesman. He said the Americans thought they were under attack from a nearby Afghan army checkpoint and fired on it, prompting the Afghan soldiers to return fire.
The Afghan Defense Ministry said the gunbattle was the result of a “misunderstanding” between international forces and Afghan soldiers manning a checkpoint in the Sayd Abad district.

There is a debate as to whether or not this story holds true.  Were our soldiers killed as a result of a misunderstanding, or was it an attack from within?  Regardless of the motive, the 2,000th American soldier has died in Afghanistan.

Now, we know our readers are pretty good with math unlike liberals in the media, so we have a little mathematical riddle for you – If 630 U.S. troops were killed in 8 years during the war in Afghanistan under Bush, and 2,000 total troops have died during the entire length of that war, how many casualties have occurred under President Obama?

Here’s an even more astounding thing to ponder – the Obama administration is now blaming the ‘friendly fire’ attacks that have killed U.S. soldiers this year on troops that are not sensitive enough to the religion of Islam.

In other words, they had it coming.

The New York Post reports (h/t Gateway Pundit):

Afghan security forces, our supposed allies, are slaughtering American troops. Thirty-three soldiers have been killed by “green on blue” attacks this year alone. The situation is so bad that the training of Afghan forces has been temporarily suspended.

How has the Pentagon responded?

By blaming our troops.

Top officials believe culturally offensive behavior is the motivation behind the killings, so it’s stepped up Islamic sensitivity training for our troops.

If you don’t want to be shot in the back by your Afghan training partners, the Pentagon advises, don’t offend their religious sensibilities. Don’t kick your feet up on a table, for instance, and never ask to see a picture of their wives and kids. “There’s a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a recent interview. Dempsey echoes the concerns of Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, the Afghan National Army’s chief of staff, who earlier this month argued both sides need to do more to “teach” foreign troops Islamic traditions and values to reduce the chance of violent reactions to cultural slights. “It is our duty to teach this to them. Our indifference about these issues causes the incident,” he said.

Of course, this fits in quite well with the President’s view that when it comes to soldiers and diplomats being killed abroad, everyone is to blame for their deaths except for the people who actually pull the trigger.

When do you suppose the Obama administration will start training Afghan troops to respect American traditions and values, and start blaming violence in the Middle East on those who have no values?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Two Futures: Appeasement or Strength?

September 25, 2012 at 4:11 pm (Allen West, Appeasement, Islam, Libya, President Obama, Strength)

Earlier today in his address to the United Nations, President Obama again found it difficult to identify a clear case of terrorism as terrorism.

In that address, the President spoke of the future of those who would dare insult the religion of Islam, taking a shot at the makers of the anti-Mohammed film which has since been used as a paltry excuse for the attacks in Libya.

Meanwhile, Congressman Allen West also offered his vision of the future for those who would attack and kill Americans.

You tell me which statements you would rather hear from the Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama (Democrat):

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Allen West (Republican):

“The future does not belong to those who attack our Embassies and Consulates and kill our Ambassadors. The Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your existence”

So which do you prefer, appeasement or strength?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Despite Having Ambassador’s Journal That Suggests Otherwise, CNN Continues to Blame Anti-Islam Film For Attack in Libya

September 23, 2012 at 9:45 am (Anderson Cooper, Anderson Cooper 360, Bias by Omission, Censorship, Christopher Stevens, CNN, CNN.com, Islam, Journal, Libya)

Who knew that “a source familiar with Ambassador Steven’s thinking” may have been Ambassador Stevens himself?

Citing an unnamed but mysteriously close source on Wednesday, CNN’s Anderson Cooper reported that Christopher Stevens was concerned about security threats, Islamic extremism, and an al-Qaeda hit list in the months leading up to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Two days later, Cooper admitted that some of the information from that report secretly came from Stevens own handwriting, in a seven-page personal journal that the network had found at the scene of the attack.

In Cooper’s own words:

‘On Wednesday of this week, we reported that a source familiar with Ambassador Stevens’ thinking said in the months before his death, Ambassador Stevens talked about being worried about what he called the never-ending security threats in Benghazi,’ Cooper told his viewers Friday night.
‘We also reported that the ambassador specifically mentioned the rise in Islamic extremism, the growing al Qaeda presence in Libya and said he was on an al Qaeda hit list.
‘The information for that report, like all of CNN’s reporting, was carefully vetted.  Some of that information was found in a personal journal of Ambassador Stevens in his handwriting.

Since CNN has made it nearly impossible to discern what is coming from the journal and what is coming from the mind reading source, we must do a little reasoning and deduction.

If we are to believe that there is a separate source that has channeled Stevens’ thinking, along with Stevens’ actual thinking, and we take CNN at their word that only ‘some of that information’ came from the journal (which is difficult considering they pretended they didn’t have the journal in the first place), that leaves us with this basic fact…

There were three things Stevens feared leading up to the attacks:  Security threats, Islamic extremism, and al-Qaeda.

Therefore the journal, and Stevens’ own handwriting, had to have specifically mentioned at least one of these three items – security threats, Islamic extremism, or al-Qaeda – as being a concern.

But oddly enough, no mention of an obscure anti-Islam video on YouTube.

Despite having this information straight from the source, CNN is still insisting the attacks in Benghazi occurred because of the movie.  Earlier today, in a wire report that actually explained how CNN obtained the Stevens journal, the network continues to place blame on the anti-Islam video.  Witness these three sequential paragraphs (emphasis mine):

For CNN, the ambassador’s writings served as tips about the situation in Libya, and in Benghazi in particular. CNN took the newsworthy tips and corroborated them with other sources.

A source familiar with Stevens’ thinking told CNN earlier this week that, in the months leading up to his death, the late ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.

Stevens died on September 11, along with three other Americans, when the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi came under attack amid a large protest about a U.S.-made film that mocked the Muslim Prophet Mohammed.

Even prior to that, CNN was reporting on Friday that Hillary Clinton had flatly stated there was no information suggesting that Ambassador Stevens believed he was on an al-Qaeda hit list.  In that report, the network cited the aforementioned ‘source familiar with Stevens’ thinking’ but never felt it necessary to argue Clinton’s point – remember Cooper’s report claimed that Stevens “said he was on an al-Qaeda hit list” – by mentioning that they had actual handwriting from Stevens that suggested otherwise.

Of course, this is the same network that published an opinion piece after all of this had come to light which states, ‘Protests are as mindless as anti-Islam film’.

No, no they are not.

Equating the ‘protests’ to the anti-Islam film would only be appropriate if people actually died during the filming.  As if to accentuate the point, the author refers to the ‘protesters’ as mindless and criminal, while calling the video’s producers extremist and criminal.

Here’s the gold-plated, glaringly apparent difference:

The ‘protesters’ crime?  Four murders… at least.

The movie producer’s crime?  Drug charges.

As for referring to the attacks as ‘protests’ we prefer the more accurate description – pre-planned terrorist attacks.

Honestly, if you can’t even discern basic differences such as those, you should take your writing to a second-rate network like CNN.

Oh … never mind.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters

Permalink Leave a Comment

America Attacked Again on 9/11 … and We Apologize?

September 12, 2012 at 9:00 am (9/11, Apology, Appeasement, Cairo, Christopher Stevens, Egypt, Embassy, Islam, Libya, Political Correctness, President Obama, Radical Islam, Religious Extremism, September 11th, Terrorism, Terrorists)

The same Egyptian protesters that President Obama was more than willing to support during the so-called Arab Spring, mounted an unprecedented attack on an American Embassy in Cairo yesterday.

CNN reported:

Angry protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and hauled down its American flags, replacing them with black flags with Islamic emblems.

The incident prompted U.S. security guards to fire off a volley of warning shots as a large crowd gathered outside, apparently upset about the production of a Dutch film thought to insult the Prophet Mohammed, said CNN producer Mohammed Fahmy, who was on the scene.

An embassy operator told CNN that the facility had been cleared of diplomatic personnel earlier Tuesday, ahead of the apparent threat, while Egyptian riot police were called to help secure the embassy walls.

An embassy in Libya was also attacked.

Protesters angry over an amateurish American-made video denouncing Islam attacked the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, killing a State Department officer, while Egyptian demonstrators stormed over the fortified walls of the United States Embassy here.

On the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the assaults were a violent reminder that the changes sweeping the region have hardly dispelled the rage against the United States that still smolders in pockets around the Arab world.

The results?  Multiple Americans were shot, while others were the victims of a rocket attack that killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.

The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on their car, a Libyan official said, as they were rushed from a consular building stormed by militants denouncing a U.S.-made film insulting the Prophet Mohammad.

Gunmen had attacked and burned the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, a center of last year’s uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, late on Tuesday evening, killing one U.S. consular official. The building was evacuated.

The Libyan official said the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was being driven from the consulate building to a safer location when gunmen opened fire.

Believe it or not, the response coming from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo included an apology to the extremists who had carried out the attack.

I’m going to say that again.

The Obama administration apologized to terrorists who had burned down sovereign American buildings and killed an American citizen.

The statement from the Embassy in Cairo actually apologized for “religious incitement” and for “hurting the religious feelings of Muslims”.

I wish I was making that up.  Here is the statement:

Have you ever in your life thought, after two U.S. embassies were attacked and seized by radical Islamists, in which multiple Americans were shot – one fatally – and an embassy was nearly burned to the ground, exactly 11 years to the day after the worst terrorist attack in American history perpetrated by similar radical Islamists, that you would ever see an administration actually issue an apology for ‘hurting the religious feelings of Muslims’?

Oh I know they’re trying to walk it back now, but weakness has already been shown. This will go down as the single most cowardly and disgraceful response to an attack on the fundamental American right of free speech in modern history.

Worse, it crossed the bounds of a mere protest when an American was shot and killed. It is a terrorist attack. And we apologized.

President ‘Gutsy Call’ is now officially operating under a foreign policy platform in which we as a nation are subservient to terrorism and slaves to appeasement.

Indeed, the administration is working fervently to backpedal on the apology, 17 hours after the fact.  But the damage is done.

Via Politico:

The Obama administration is disavowing a statement from its own Cairo embassy that seemed to apologize for anti-Muslim activity in the United States.

“The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government,” an administration official told POLITICO.

The embassy came under widespread criticism for failing to defend free speech in the face of threats of violence. Egyptian protesters rioted anyway, breaching the embassy walls and tearing down the American flag.

The criticism has been warranted.  This may go down as one of the most embarrassing days in foreign policy history, and proves that having ‘we killed Osama bin laden’ as your biggest foreign policy platform isn’t enough.  Amateur hour in the White House needs to end in November.

Permalink Leave a Comment

When Bacon Becomes a Hate Crime

August 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm (Bacon, Hate Crime, Hate Crimes Division, Islam, New Dorp Beach, New York, NYPD, Ramadan, Staten Island)

If loving bacon is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.

The Hate Crimes Division of the NYPD has been called in to investigate an incident at the New Dorp Beach field after bacon was found on the ground before a Ramadan service.

SI Live reports (h/t Gateway Pundit):

It’s being investigated as a hate crime — someone scattered pieces of bacon over the New Dorp Beach field where the borough’s Muslim community celebrated the end of Ramadan Sunday morning.

But that act of desecration failed to ruin what organizers described as a successful celebration — about 1,500 worshipers gathered at the John D’Amato Field at New Dorp Lane and Cedar Grove Avenue, unaware of the early morning police investigation that preceded the ceremony.

“Everything went smoothly,” said Dr. Mohamed Sadeia, president of the Muslim American Society on Staten Island, which organized the gathering. “The community is really not aware of it.

Dr. Sadiea was one of a handful of organizers who noticed the uncooked bacon on a small section of the field at about 8 a.m.

He said he contacted police, but kept the incident and investigation quiet, because he didn’t want to distress the adults and children gathering for morning prayers.

“They didn’t want to ruin the happiness of one of the only two holidays of the entire year,” said Hesham El-Meligy, the founder of the Islamic Civic Association-Staten Island, who said he didn’t attend the outdoor ceremony but had heard about the incident.

An police spokeswoman confirmed on Sunday that the NYPD’s Hate Crime Unit is investigating the incident.

Adherents of Islam are forbidden to eat pork.

Granted, if somebody did this knowing full-well that the religion of Islam forbids pork, then it is certainly a prank in poor taste.  But it hardly amounts to the level of a hate crime.

Especially in light of some cases in which Christians were targeted, and the assailants were not charged with hate crimes.

Examples of that include:

This brick assault on a Christian church.
High school basketball players assaulted for Tebowing.
More recently, the shooting at the Family Research Center, in which the Obama administration refused to consider the event a hate crime.

The above incidents could easily be considered more vile. But bacon on a field where Ramadan is being celebrated, while tasteless, is not hate.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Shareholder to New York Times: “You’re Willing to Offend the Catholics Because They’re Not Going to Come and Kill You”

May 2, 2012 at 9:44 am (Catholic, Cliff Kincaid, Islam, Muslim, New York Times, Pamela Gellar, Radical Islam, Religion)

New York Times Chairman, Arthur Sulzberger

Last month, the New York Times accepted and ran an advertisement which bashed religion, and asked Catholic readers to consider leaving the church.  Such an advertisement in itself does not show the Times religious bias.  What does however, is the fact that the same newspaper refused to run a similar ad that asked practicing Muslims to do the same.

Via Fox News:

The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed an ad making the same plea to Muslims.
The newspaper published an ad from Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation on March 9 which asked Catholics, “why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters?” The ad went on to call loyalty to the faith misplaced “after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top.”
But in a story first reported by The Daily Caller, when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.
“This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the “gold standard” in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation,” Geller told FoxNews.com.

Responding to the heat brought on by the blatant hypocrisy, the New York Times claimed that they opposed the anti-Muslim ad because it could jeopardize the safety of American troops.

Fox News host Trace Gallagher reached out to the Times for comment, receiving the following explanation:

“The fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”

Now however, one shareholder at the New York Times has openly criticized their double-standard operation by suggesting that it is the company’s own safety they are looking out for.

Cliff Kincaid, Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and a shareholder in the company, confronted a group of executives at the Times annual shareholders meeting, accusing them of running the anti-Catholic ad because:

“You’re willing to offend the Catholics because they’re not going to come and kill you.” 

That’s it in nutshell, is it not?  The media is willing to report negatively about other religions, but refuse to cast a negative shadow on Islam.  And fear is the overwhelming factor.

What the media should be doing is an introspection, asking themselves why they are afraid of offending Muslims. When they find that answer, maybe they can more accurately report on the events involving Islamic extremists.

Here is a larger excerpt from Kincaid’s report:

Speaking at the April 25 New York Times annual meeting, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company, tried to justify the rejection of an ad calling attention to the alleged oppressive nature of the Islamic religion and the “vengeful, hateful and violent teachings” of Islam’s prophet. He said the ad might incite violence in the Middle East.
 At the same time, he justified the placement of an anti-Catholic ad in The New York Times by saying, “We take political ads that we do not agree with. That is the nature of advocacy advertising.” 
Representing Accuracy in Media, a shareholder in the company for the purpose of getting access to the annual meetings, I told Sulzberger, his executives and other Times shareholders, “You’re willing to offend the Catholics because they’re not going to come and kill you.” 
The full-page, anti-Catholic ad ran on March 9 under the title “It’s time to quit the Catholic Church” and was sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It showed a cartoon of a Catholic Bishop going berserk over a birth control pill and urged Catholics to leave the church. 
The ad against radical Islam, designed to test the paper’s commitment to fairness and freedom of expression, had a cartoon of a radical Imam upset over a smoldering Koran. It was sponsored and signed by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of Stop Islamization of Nations and the American Freedom Defense Initiative. 

Please read more details from the meeting here… 

Learn more about the New York Times pro-radical Muslim reporting here…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Islamic Organization With Terror Ties Complains About – and Successfully Shuts Down – Event Celebrating the U.S. Constitution

April 30, 2012 at 3:11 pm (Ann Arbor, CAIR, Constitution, Hamas, Holy Land Foundation, Islam, Michigan, Muslim Brotherhood, Radical, Terror, Thomas More Law Center)

This is beyond outrageous.  Could somebody please explain to the officials running Michiganistan that they still live in America? … for the time being anyway.

Via Christian Newswire:

In the middle of an event to extol the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and “American Laws For American Courts,” the audience learned first-hand how easy it is to lose their freedom of Speech and Assembly.

Amid shouts of “What about free speech?” from the audience, the Allegan Police Department ordered the event shut-down. School officials notified police that they had received a letter complaining about the event from Dawud Walid, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI). The letter asked the school to disallow the event despite an existing contract. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in U. S. history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation.

As a result, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR- MI), its Executive Director, the City of Allegan, the Allegan Police Department and the School District were named as defendants in a thirty-four page civil rights lawsuit filed in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan, this morning. The claims included constitutional and contract violations. Click here for copy of federal complaint.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “It’s amazing how much clout CAIR has with the political establishment of both parties in Lansing and throughout Michigan and the nation. This, despite the fact that CAIR has its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, and the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, noted that CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

This isn’t some paranoid right-wing entity that ties every Islamic organization to terrorism.  CAIR’s ties to terrorist organizations are real and tangible.

Here is an excerpt from my report on the New York Times and the wrongfully discredited film, the Third Jihad.

Oddly enough, the strongest opposition has been from groups such as CAIR, a prime example of the organizations that are actually exposed in the film. Ryan Mauro points out that the ones trying to silence the film and who oppose its use as training material in law enforcement are the same ones who stand to lose the most from the films portrayal of radical Islam.

“What amazes me is how The New York Times and other outlets seem to treat CAIR as an objective source,” Mauro said. “We expose how CAIR and its allies grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood and the federal government has provided evidence tying them to Hamas—of course they are going to try to discredit us.”

Indeed, CAIR was one of three prominent Islamic organizations that were named as an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in a case alleging criminal conspiracy to support the Palestinian Arab terrorist group, Hamas. A report in The New York Sun documented this, while including the following statement:

“CAIR, in particular, has faced persistent claims that it is soft on terrorism. Critics note that several former CAIR officials have been convicted or deported after being charged with fraud, embargo violations, or aiding terrorist training. Spokesmen for the group have also raised eyebrows for offering generic denunciations of terrorism but refusing to condemn by name specific Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah.”

Yet the group had little trouble calling out the New York Police Department, their commissioner Ray Kelly, the mayor of New York, and the filmmakers specifically by name when denouncing something critical of CAIR itself.

That same Sun report, however, featured FBI officials that still felt the designation of co-conspirator was not warranted. A mere two years later though, they had come to the realization that CAIR’s relationship to Hamas was real, severing its once-close ties to the organization, and labeling them as nothing more than a front for the terrorist group. Executive Director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, was shown to have participated in planning meetings with the Holy Land Foundation, five officials of which were convicted in December of funneling $12.4 million to Hamas. Not only is Hamas an official U.S.-designated terrorist group, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, but it is illegal to provide support for it within the United States.

The rest of the report can be read here…

Ironically, the opening to that report seems appropriate for this new situation in Michigan.

Imagine a nation bound so tightly to the throws of the politically correct, that it can no longer defend itself. A nation so overcome with fear, that the common sense act of targeting the most likely terrorists is no longer considered an acceptable practice. Imagine an entire nation transformed from the basic understanding that it is at war with radicals willing to launch themselves as missiles into twin towers, to having the discussion turned completely on its head, to the point where even talking about that enemy is deemed taboo.

Thanks to the … brazen demands of terror-linked groups, America no longer has to imagine. We’re living it.

We’re living it indeed.  The Constitution takes second place to the demands of a terror-linked Islamic organization.  How easily we have forgotten that America comes first, and CAIR does not represent America’s best interests – they represent their own.

Permalink Leave a Comment

U.N. Sends Pro-Jihad Imam to Israel Bashing Conference, Once Called Killing of Americans a Religious Duty

February 28, 2012 at 12:17 pm (American Troops, Ban Ki-Moon, Islam, Israel, Jihad, Radical, UN, Yusuf al-Qaradawi)

From CNSNews:

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon sent his Mideast envoy to deliver a message on his behalf to a conference in Qatar this week whose aims include “pointing out the weaknesses of the Jew’s historical arguments backing their claims” to Jerusalem.

Co-hosted by the Qatar government and the Arab League, the two-day “International Conference for the Defense of Jerusalem” brought together politicians from across the Arab and Muslim world, representatives of pro-Palestinian organizations, clerics and academics.

Participants included Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an influential Sunni cleric regarded as the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who has drawn criticism for comments about Palestinian suicide bombings.

Also of note is a report I did on Qaradawi back in 2010, when he was being cited as a source of inspiration for the Ground Zero imam.

And speaking of the fatwa advising Muslims in the U.S. military that it was okay to fight the Taliban …

The renowned Islamic scholar that Rauf is referring to is Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In a New York Times article one month after 9/11, Rauf was quoted as saying:

“This fatwa is very significant. Yusuf Qaradawi is probably the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”

Question is, was that hollow fatwa (a hotwa as it were) more significant than Qaradawi’s proclamation on Al Jazeera two weeks earlier? 

Qaradawi stated: “A Muslim is forbidden from entering into an alliance with a non-Muslim against another Muslim.” He called on Muslims to “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.”

Qaradawi elaborated on that non-fatwa fatwa in 2004 when he said of American troops:

“…all of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers, and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately. The mutilation of corpses [however] is forbidden in Islam.”

Abduction and killing is an obligation, but he draws the line at corpse mutilation. Very classy.

Another moderate, in the eyes of the U.N. 

Why do we continue to house U.N. headquarters on American soil?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Surveillance of Muslim Student Associations is Justified

February 27, 2012 at 11:41 am (CAIR, College News, ICNA, Islam, Michael Bloomberg, MSA, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim-Americans, Muslims, New York, NYPD, NYPD Intelligence Division, SUNY Albany, Surveillance, Terrorism, Times Union)

Last week, the Times Union reported on a situation which is making news nationwide – New York Police Department surveillance of Muslim students on college campuses, including the State University of Albany.

The article is dripping with sarcasm aimed directly at the police force, with little or no attempt at delving deeper into the reasoning behind the surveillance.

Leave it to the Times Union to go out of their way to interject opinion into a news article, while equally managing to keep other important facts out of their report on the NYPD monitoring of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at SUNY Albany.

Did it ever occur to the Union that there might possibly be a history with the MSA that would prompt investigators to keep an eye on them?

According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism – the most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups – the MSA was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and describes them in the following manner:

MSA has gained legitimacy on American campuses as a benevolent collegiate faith club; however, under this moderate veneer MSA advances a different agenda among impressionable college students.  Through conferences and events, publications, websites and other activities, MSA has disseminated and promoted militant Islamic ideologies on college and university campuses throughout North America.   

Now, that isn’t to say the Times Union didn’t actually see neutral postings on the SUNY Albany MSA website, but it is to say there is another side to the story.  Feel free to go with a balanced approach.

The newspaper has yet to indicate in any of their stories that the normally spineless Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has defended the actions taken by the NYPD.  Via Global Post:

Bloomberg argued it is “legal,” “appropriate” and “constitutional” for police to monitor Muslim communities since they are potential places where terrorists might hide out while they prepare attacks against American citizens, the AP reported.

Of course, the Times Union did the same exact thing last year, when they ran a story about a Muslim summer camp being built in the Adirondacks.  The camp was being considered by a group known as the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).  When I contacted the newspaper about the lack of information as well as the flat-out false information being printed regarding the ICNA, an editor responded that the story was evolving and would change over time.  It never did.  They never corrected it.

Interestingly enough, the MSA and ICNA do have a connection.  Both have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, both conduct events throughout the nation in conjunction with each other, and both operate under the umbrella of the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT), a coalition of 11 major Islamic organizations.

Think neither of these organizations should be monitored or looked at more closely?  Here is my report last year regarding the ICNA:

One of the largest Muslim organizations in North America is considering plans to build a summer camp on 114 acres of land in the Adirondacks.  Via the Albany Times Union
“The Islamic Circle of North America, a Muslim advocacy group based in New York City, hopes to raise money to develop a camp for children and families of all religions on land donated to it last year.”
The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), based in Queens, New York, is not devoid of controversy in a history that spans over 40 years, yet there is scant mention of these controversies by the media.  The Times Union article states that, “U.S. law enforcement agencies have investigated, but never prosecuted, ICNA for terrorist connections.”  And there is coverage of a fundraiser involving speakers having made anti-American statements in the past, which is quickly justified by saying, “the meeting raised money for homeless women.”
But the ICNA has so much more to offer in the way of newsworthiness, including an event involving radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, as well as a link to the presently relevant Muslim Brotherhood.
Observe…
  • In the book, American Jihad, author Steven Emerson claims that the ICNA has praised terror attacks in the past, is allied with militant fundamentalist movements, and supports the imposition of sharia law.   
  • The same book mentions a statement by Senator Mitch McConnell in 1996 that the group is allied with the Islamic Association for Palestine in North America, which has ties to the terrorist organization, Hamas.
  • The ICNA has demonstrated deep ties to the fundamentalist Pakistani political party, Jamaat-e-Islami, whose main objective is the establishment of a pure Islamic state, governed by Sharia law.
  • Ran a series of Muslim subway ads in 2008, promoted by a Brooklyn imam whom federal officials had linked to a plot to blow up city landmarks.
  • Have expressed great reverence for such outstanding individuals as the Ayatollah Khomeini and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, a man famous for calling the holocaust a ‘myth’, and stating that ‘Israel must be wiped off the map.’
Additionally, radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was asked to speak at a convention sponsored jointly by the ICNA and the Muslim American Society (MAS) in July of 2002.  Awlaki has been connected with three of the 9/11 hijackers, and has since praised the murderous rampage by the Fort Hood shooter that took 14 lives, and the failed attempt by the Christmas Day bomber to kill 278 innocent people.  What’s more, Awlaki spoke alongside Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. 
It should be noted that the ICNA released a statement denouncing Awlaki’s views – nearly eight years later – but noting that at the time of his appearance, he had not been accused of any extremist ties, and that he had only started making radical lectures after being detained in 2007.
This is, of course, a flat-out falsehood.  In fact, here’s a bit of what was already known regarding Awlaki at the time of his ICNA appearance:
  • In 1996, he encouraged a student at his mosque to fight jihad, prompting an elder to confront him, eventually leading to his departure.
  • In 1998 and 1999, served as Vice President of a charity founded by Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, an associate of Osama bin Laden and a man designated by the U.S. government as a ‘Specially Designated Global Terrorist’.
  • The F.B.I. first took notice of Awlaki in 1999 based on his relationship with militants and his role in running a ‘front organization to funnel money to terrorists’.
  • The 9/11 Commission had shown that F.B.I. investigators were divided over Awlaki’s involvement in the terrorist attacks, but had expressed concern over his role as spiritual advisor to two of the hijackers, with one detective saying he believed Awlaki ‘was at the center of the 9/11 story’.
But if you’re looking for a current piece of news regarding the ICNA, then look no further than Egypt.  Considered to be the North American branch of the aforementioned Jamaat-e-Islami, the ICNA also maintains close ties to international groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.   The Muslim Brotherhood has objectives far different than the simple establishment of a camp for various religions.  Their stated motto:
Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
Joe Kaufman, in Front Page Magazine wrote:
“When tens of thousands of Iranian violence-driven malcontents scream “Death to America” in chorus, we Americans have a right to know who here is screaming with them. And once we find out who, law enforcement and intelligence needs to investigate and take appropriate action, so that inappropriate action is not taken upon us.”
Or, in the case of today’s media, we can simply watch them build a summer camp without so much as a cursory look at who’s behind the project.
Nothing to see here…

Let the Times Union know that it isn’t their job as journalists to interject opinion into their reporting.  But it is their job to report all of the facts.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Remembering Daniel Pearl

February 1, 2012 at 10:23 am (Daniel Pearl, Extreme, Islam, Jewish, Jihad, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, KSM, Taliban, Terrorist, Waterboard)

This is a great piece from Yid With Lid regarding the ten year anniversary since Daniel Pearl was brutally murdered.  It is a reminder of the kind of extremism we have been fighting in the Middle East, and here at home (remember the honor killings, the Buffalo TV producer who decapitated his wife?).

Next time you’re appalled by the thought of waterboarding (not torture) or how our government handles interrogations, do just one thing before you speak…

Remember Daniel Pearl

The prisoner surrounded by cowardly men covering their faces, looked at the camera and said, “My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish.” just before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed brutally hacked his head off in front of the whole world. Today, ten years after that horrific day, the memory of how Daniel Pearl was murdered still resonates in the hearts of many people in this country. Pearl was lured into his capture for one reason, he wanted to give the terrorists an opportunity to tell their side of the story–he was killed for one reason—he was a Jew.

It is sad that Daniel Pearl’s murder is relegated into the deep crevices of our collective memories. It is also sad that many among us view the man who hacked of Pearl’s head, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is considered a martyr by liberal Americans because he was blind-folded and showered with water–they call that torture. They remember the killer’s water boarding, but do not remember his act of brutally murdering this American, leaving his wife a widow and causing his son (who was born months after his death) to be born without his father.

I ask you…which one act was really torture, water boarding, or having ones head hacked off with a knife. And by knife I do not mean the swift executioners blade, but literately cut off with back and forth movements as one would slice off a piece if steak. I also ask, was the recent revelation of soldiers possibly urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters anywhere as disrespectful as posting a video of Pearl’s murder ending with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed holding up the young man’s head in triumph?

Please read the rest here…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Next page »