Can We Win the War on Terror?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the will of the U.S. to fight terrorists. This follows this post about an earlier U.S. attack on Syria. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Can We Win the War on Terror?






article by Cecil Maranville





The world is at war. It's not the long-envisioned nuclear exchange, but don't count nuclear weapons out. This is a shadowy war of principle, one the United States, Britain and their allies are ill-equipped to win.



In August 1998, the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, came under violent attack by a then little-known terrorist group—al-Qaeda. Although its leader, Osama bin Laden, issued his now infamous "World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders" in February of that year, no one imagined the consequences. The death and injury toll was considerable—301 dead and more than 5,000 injured—but the bombings did not betray their significance.



The truth is, they started a worldwide war of terror.



The world did not realize it until the next major battle three years later. This time the number of dead was 10 times as great, when in a twin "airline missile" attack on the World Trade Center, this shadowy enemy murdered innocent people from 80 nations in a period of minutes (the other attacks were directed toward the U.S. government and military).



The world was at war again.



Just as at the outset of previous world wars, not all nations realized what was happening or joined the battle at the same time. And, over two years later, some still waffle over their allegiances.



Bin Laden's name and al-Qaeda were associated with the 9/11 attacks within hours. It was shocking to learn that a lone, ill-defined terrorist cell had been able to strike at the heart of the world's only superpower. But it was inconceivable to the point of defying sanity to think that al-Qaeda would draw the entire world into a protracted war.



To this day, many do not believe a tiny army of fanatics could have pulled off the 9/11 attacks. A recent poll of German citizens revealed that a startling 20 percent of its people believe the U.S. government engineered the attacks on its own people ("German Disbelief Over 9/11," CNN, July 24, 2003).



The attack slapped the United States to wakefulness, leaving not only dead and wounded, but also inflicting a draconian injury to its economy estimated at a $2 trillion loss.



"Good vs. evil"



U.S. President George W. Bush began speaking of the battle as "good vs. evil," with the "good" being democratic nations and the "evil" being what he called "global terrorism."



There are two ways to understand "global terrorism": (1) terrorism on a global scale and (2) terrorism against the globe, that is, against the world. While the first definition is no doubt what the president initially had in mind, the passage of time gives us the benefit of hindsight. We now know that both definitions apply.



The struggle pits the world's nations against a radical Islamic group whose wispy but deadly tentacles know no national boundary.



Bin Laden had been a low-level leader among freedom fighters in Afghanistan who opposed the occupying Russian forces. Once the Russians were ousted, he turned his attention and passion against the government of his native Saudi Arabia, seeking to "purify" his country of the "corrupting presence" of the United States. (The United States maintained a continuing military presence there after the 1991 Gulf War.) The royals were in no mood for a rabble-rouser and ordered him out of the country, revoking his citizenship.



He returned to Afghanistan and began organizing former freedom fighters into his private army, a military tool that could enforce his religious vision. He was the man for the moment, giving voice and modern identity to a type of religious terrorism that has waxed and waned since Muhammad's days.



A monster child



Bin Laden's brand of radical Wahhabism was a suitable mate for the Afghan government, controlled by the Taliban. State-sponsored Islamic terrorism on a massive scale was the monster child of that ideological marriage.



Perhaps the U.S. government would have been more effective in responding to the 1998 embassy bombings had then President Clinton and his administration not been distracted by scandal. If so, maybe al-Qaeda would have died an infant. That's a question for history.



What bin Laden financed and led in some fashion (many believe that he does not have the intelligence or the charisma to be the singular leader of the group) now has a life of its own. U.S. intelligence believes that al-Qaeda will continue to be a major threat, whether bin Laden lives or dies. The monster child is grown and is alive and well.



Al-Qaeda is suspected to be involved in the "battle for the peace" in Iraq. Demonstrating its capacity to carry out operations in more than one country at the same time, it bombed two synagogues and the British consulate in Turkey last month, killing dozens and injuring upwards of 750.



As is typical of terrorism, no one knows who the next target is. The U.S. intelligence assessment is stark: "The Al Qaida network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious terrorism threat facing the United States. Al Qaida will continue to favor spectacular attacks but also may seek softer targets of opportunity, such as banks, shopping malls, supermarkets, and places of recreation and entertainment.



"Al Qaida will continue its efforts to acquire and develop biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons. We judge that there is a high probability that Al Qaida will attempt an attack using a CBRN weapon within the next two years" (April 17, 2003, report from the U.S. ambassador to the UN, emphasis added throughout).



Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear



The Central Intelligence Agency's report "Terrorist CBRN: Materials and Effects" (May 2003) provides us with more information on the possibility of CBRN weapons: "Al-Qa'ida is interested in radiological dispersal devices (RDDs) or 'dirty bombs.' Construction of an RDD is well within its capabilities as radiological materials are relatively easy to acquire from industrial or medical sources. Usama Bin Laden's operatives may try to launch conventional attacks against the nuclear industrial infrastructure of the United States in a bid to cause contamination, disruption, and terror.



"A document recovered from [an] Al-Qa'ida facility in Afghanistan contained a sketch of a crude nuclear device...



"A simple explosive RDD consisting of a live-shielded container—commonly called a 'pig'—and a kilogram of explosive attached could easily fit into a backpack."



Al-Qaeda may also use biological weapons.



"Both 11 September attack leader Mohamed Atta and Zacharias Moussaoui expressed interest in crop dusters, raising our concern that Al-Qa'ida has considered using aircraft to disseminate [chemical and biological] weapons.



"Analysis of an Al-Qa'ida document recovered in Afghanistan in summer 2002 indicates the group has crude procedures for making mustard agent, sarin, and VX...



"Initial skin contact with mustard causes mild skin irritation, which develops into more severe yellow fluid-filled blisters. Inhalation of mustard damages the lungs, causes difficulty breathing, and death by suffocation in severe cases...



"Sarin...and VX are highly toxic military agents that disrupt a victim's nervous system by blocking the transmission of nerve signals" (ibid.).



It is almost impossible to defend against the production of some chemical weapons. Ricin is a good example. It "is a plant toxin that is 30 times more potent than the nerve agent VX by weight and is readily obtainable by extraction from common castor beans. There's no treatment for ricin poisoning after it has entered the bloodstream. Victims start to show symptoms within hours to days after exposure, depending on the dosage and route of administration" (ibid.).



A fight to the death over principle



In some ways, the objective of the war is terror itself, invading the sanctity of a free nation and destroying its sense of security. But there is a broader objective.



The objective in this world war is not to invade and conquer land, but rather to invade and conquer a way of thinking. The president of the United States was right in declaring it a war of good vs. evil, that is, a war of principle. It is a war between the wild-eyed definition of Islam that Wahhabism sponsors and Western-style democracy, with roots in Judeo-Christian teaching.



Wahhabism is rapidly igniting passionate support for its goals in the dried grass of poverty in the Islamic dictatorships and monarchies, in the few Islamic democracies and in Islamic minorities throughout the democratic world.



But is the democratic world ready for an ideological war? And is it equipped to fight it?



The answer to the first question is no, for nations bicker and squabble over which nation is in charge. Jealous resentment of the United States on the part of a slowly maturing EU is painfully obvious. Most notable among those more willing to argue over who will lead the column than who will join it are those historical rivals of each other, France and Germany. Russia cannot make up its mind whether it is friend or foe, so much like the scorpion and the frog, à la Aesop.



Clearly, the world's democratic nations do not yet recognize their common threat.



China, whose ambition to be the next superpower is thinly veiled indeed, also feels no threat. If anything, it sees the present world conflict as an opportunity to advance its own interests.



In light of all of this, the answer to the second question must also be no. How could the world be equipped to fight a war of principle when its leading powers cannot agree on the simplest of principles?



The United States seized the lead for several reasons. Most obviously, it absorbed the initial assault, not just on its interests, but also on its soil. Also, it continues to protect its interests by taking the war to Iraq and seeking to defeat the enemy far from home, if possible.



But many American citizens firmly believe that the main reason the United States took the lead was due to the leadership of a principled man, President George W. Bush, who clearly saw this as a war of ideology. Shoulder to shoulder with him is British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The American president said from the beginning that this is a fight to the death. He repeats that mantra nearly every time he speaks, showing he is up for the battle.



America and Britain not up to the challenge



But is the nation he leads? Americans' interest in matters of ideology or principle is ever shrinking, in reverse proportion to its ever-expanding appetite for self-indulgence and entertainment. Americans responded with historic fervor at first, but the World War I patriotic song, "The Yanks are coming and we won't come back 'til it's over, over there" is rapidly giving way to a whine: "When is it going to be over, over there?"



A USA Today /CNN/Gallup Poll released Nov. 19 shows a country nearly evenly divided on its approval for going to war in Iraq, and "most are unconvinced that the war has made the United States safer from terrorist attacks" (Richard Benedetto, "Poll Finds Splits Over Iraq to Be More Even: 55% Disapprove of U.S. Management of the Situation," USA Today ).



Political correctness keeps authorities from zeroing in on the core issue of Wahhabism vs. the West with its Judeo-Christian roots. Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi schools operating within the United States have been widely publicized. But the government is loath to speak against them directly, in spite of the fact that the Wahhabi philosophy wants nothing less than the total end of all things Judeo-Christian. The reason? The United States walks the tightrope of combating Wahhabi terrorism and avoiding destabilizing Middle Eastern governments in order to maintain a fragile peace.



That's a political decision the United States and Britain will lament.



In spite of the fact that the United States and Britain owe their glorious histories to the God of the Bible (see our booklet, The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy ), both avoid fully embracing Him and His laws. Indeed, the basis of much of the powerful hatred within a large sector of the American people toward their president is a dislike for the fact that he is a man of obvious Christian convictions.



In other words, the United States and Britain are pulling their punches in this war of principle. Our peoples turn to God when we hurt, but we are getting over the hurt of 9/11. Continuing to fight in Iraq only reminds us of what we would prefer to shut out.



Meanwhile, the other side, in part led by al-Qaeda, presses forward with nothing to lose. Who would have thought that such a war would be so difficult to sort out—or that so few could topple so many? —WNP

.

A Page on the World: Secrets of the Kingdom

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Saudi Arabia's manipulation of the U.S. This follows this post about China as a friend or foe in situations such as North Korea.  For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown (not the book discussed below) for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

A Page on the World: Secrets of the Kingdom

article by Cecil Maranville





Gerald Posner gives "the inside story of the Saudi-U.S. connection" (2005, ISBN 1-4000-6291-8).
Blogger's note: You can get THIS book here: http://www.worldcat.org/title/secrets-of-the-kingdom-the-inside-story-of-the-saudi-us-connection/oclc/58422730&referer=brief_results



Gerald Posner presents a detailed history of Saudi Arabia, "the House of Saud," focusing particularly on the unusual linkage between it and the United States from its creation through to the present. What he has to say isn't always flattering to either nation, but it is eye-opening. Much of current politics hinges upon a covenant that a sheik struck with a religious zealot nearly three centuries ago.



In the 1700s, the Arabian Peninsula was a desolate stretch of desert, broken by the occasional oasis and inhabited by many nomadic tribes that constantly battled each other for control of the sand.



At that time, a local tribesman named Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab tried to persuade all who would listen that they should follow a strict interpretation of Islam. He memorized the entire Koran by the age of 10, and then traveled to what is now Iraq and Iran to study Islamic law further. He returned to the peninsula to preach against paganism and to advocate a pure Muslim faith. His students called themselves mujahideen ("holy warriors"), and they condemned nonbelievers as infidels.



Their detractors referred to them as Wahhabis.



Wahhab had a militant political dimension to his preaching, which attracted the attention of the emir of a tiny oasis town, Ad Diriyah. That emir was Muhammad Saud. The two leaders "...swore a traditional Muslim mithaq, or covenant, promising to work together to establish a state based on the most austere Islamic principles. It was an oath that would change history."



Eventually, Saud subdued all other tribes, creating a kingdom. The West largely discounted it by the turn of the 20th century, expecting it to collapse from bankruptcy. In 1932, geologists discovered oil, and suddenly the Sauds were wealthy and their nation viable. From the beginning, the royals shared their wealth with the Wahhabis, funding religious training.



Initial oil exploration and production was under the control of an American company, which paid royalties to the Saudis, but took most of the profits. That changed in the 1970s, when the oil-producing nations formed OPEC and began a slow nationalization of oil production.



Angry at the Nixon administration for resupplying Israel after the Yom Kippur War, the kingdom led OPEC to raise the price of oil 70 percent in a single jump! Emboldened by what it perceived to be a weak response by the United States, King Faisal pushed OPEC to double its price of crude on top of that increase. Today, the increase of a few dollars per barrel makes headlines. Imagine, by comparison, the price of crude jumping from $65 to $110 overnight—and then, jumping again to over $220 per barrel!



The kingdom discovered the awesome political power of its oil. OPEC embargoed oil production to force the United Nations to pass resolution 242, which called upon Israel to withdraw from land captured in the 1967 war.



Not only could they influence world politics, the Saudis also could enrich themselves. Coincidental with the increase in the cost of a barrel of oil, their share of profits went up, because they were negotiating more and more ownership in the oil companies. Profits before 1973 were about $2 billion per year. After the end of the embargo in March 1974, their income ballooned to more than $l00 billion per year!



Recognizing the opportunity, the kingdom's chief Wahhabi cleric approached then King Faisal about using the mushrooming wealth to promote Wahhabism. The king agreed. With the Wahhabi leaders, he created the Muslim World League to spread Wahhabism, kicking it off with $50 million.



The king placed important ministries under Wahhabi direction, including education. The king himself was a bitter anti-Semite, believing that Jews were attempting to take over the world. In 1972, he told a reporter that when he was on a trip to Paris, police discovered five murdered Arab children, whose blood their Jewish killers drained to make matzo bread for Passover. He repeated this story to others as an illustration of the evils of Zionism.



Under Wahhabi oversight, all Saudi children received an education in anti-Semitism. "A mandatory Saudi textbook, Introduction to the Science of History, condemned Jews as intrinsically evil, and taught that they were a 'corrupt and deceitful' race. A 1968 conference of the Academy of Islamic Research had produced a body of virulent anti-Semitism from Muslim scholars, calling Jews a 'pest and plague,' 'cursed by Satan,' and 'thirsty for drinking more blood of Muslims'" (page 45).



Religious police rigorously enforced Islamic law. They patrolled the Safeway and A&P supermarkets, on the alert for unmarried couples shopping together, which was a "crime" punishable by three days in jail and 80 lashes.



The kingdom continued flexing its political influence, building a powerful pro-Arab lobby in Washington and pressuring the UN to give Yasser Arafat's PLO observer status.



As oil revenues increased, so also did funding for Wahhabi education, including schools outside the kingdom, called madrassas. By the mid-1990s, more than a million children outside the kingdom received a Wahhabi education in these schools, including some who later became Islamic terrorists. As the Saudis' largest customer, the United States contributed hundreds of billions of dollars over the years to the kingdom and, therefore, indirectly to the promotion of Wahhabi theology.



Posner details the profligacy of the royal family. He relates numerous anecdotes about the absurd abuse of wealth, including this one: On one occasion, the king purchased a new luxury automobile, merely because the one he had ran out of gas.



For decades, the royals consumed oil revenue as personal income, with almost nothing trickling down to the average citizen. Perhaps a sense of guilt encouraged them to promote the ultraconservative Wahhabism.



Posner also explains the delicate and controversial internal politics behind Saudi Arabia's invitation to the United States to base troops there in preparation for the first Gulf War. In spite of the great wealth the kingdom gained from doing business with America, it holds the country in contempt. Only the Saudis' fear of Saddam Hussein and/or Iran's Shiites overrunning their borders was stronger.



Given the current geopolitical scene, the latter issue should get our attention. Saudis, like most Muslims, are Sunnis. They do not appreciate Iranian President Ahmadinejad's nuclear saber-rattling, and they do not share his theological view of an end-time Mahdi.



In fact, Posner asserts, the Saudis have a doomsday plan, which would prevent anyone from profiting from their oilfields. They have conventional explosives packed around radiological material in their oilfields, pipelines and ports, which they can trigger should anyone overrun the country. Not only would the explosives destroy the infrastructure, but also the radiological material (essentially, a number of "dirty bombs") would contaminate the sand, as well as the oil and natural gas it contains, for generations to come.



Moreover, they have an underground city beneath Riyadh, built to withstand nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical attacks, for the purpose of allowing the royal family and its billions to survive, even if the nation did not.



Lastly, the Saudis, in turn, invested hundreds of billions of their oil revenues into the American economy. President Bush said recently that America was addicted to Arab oil. It is also addicted to Arab investments. Saudi investments are responsible for several hundreds of thousands of American jobs. WNP

.

Islamic apartheid in action: Saudis design women-only city

A very interesting post from www.jihadwatch.org about women in Saudi Arabia. This follows this post about Huma Abedin and Saudi Arabia. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE.

Islamic apartheid in action: Saudis design women-only city


UPDATE: Al-Arabiya insists that this story is false -- after it has been reported all over the world by innumerable news sources. (Thanks to Amirul.)

---

Vividly enforcing women's second-class status under Sharia. "Saudi Arabia: Riyadh designs a women-only city," from AGI, August 13 (thanks to C. Cantoni):



(AGI) London - Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Wahabism (the strictest Islamic doctrine), will soon build a women-only town.

Its purpose is to reconcile female carrier aspirations and a strict sex division. According to Sunday Mail, the city has already a name, Hafuf, will be built in the east of the country, and its construction work is scheduled to start next year. . .



Posted by Robert

Saudi Arabia considers law against insulting Islam

A very interesting post from www.jihadwatch.org about freedom of speech being denied in Saudi Arabia. This follows this post about sharia enforcement in Saudi Arabia. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Saudi Arabia considers law against insulting Islam


This is the kind of law that many in the mainstream media want to bring to the West, as well. "Saudi Arabia considers law against insulting Islam," from Reuters, July 15 (thanks to all who sent this in):



(Reuters) - Saudi Arabia is studying new regulations to criminalise insulting Islam, including in social media, and the law could carry heavy penalties, a Saudi paper said on Sunday.

The potential regulations come five months after a Saudi blogger and columnist Hamza Kashgari, 23, was arrested for tweeting comments deemed as insulting the Prophet Mohammad. Kashgari said there were things he liked and disliked about him.



"Within the next two months the Shura Council will reveal the outcome of study on the regulations to combat the criticism of the basic tenets of Islamic sharia," unnamed sources with knowledge of the matter told al-Watan, adding that there could be "severe punishments" for violators.



Criticism penalised under the law would include that of the Prophet, early Muslim figures and clerics, it said.



"The (regulations) are important at the present time because violations over social networks on the Internet have been observed in the past months," the sources said.



Saudi Arabia follows a strict version of Sunni Islamic law, referred to as Wahhabism. Blasphemy can be punishable by death.



A spokesman from the Shura Council, the governments all-appointed consultative body, did not respond to calls for comment.



Kashgari's case set off a debate in Saudi Arabia, a close US ally for decades and leading world oil exporter, on whether repentance could save convicts from the death penalty.



Kashgari fled the country in February, a few days after his twitter posts, but was later arrested by police in Malaysia en route to New Zealand....



Saudi analyst Jamal Khashoggi said the law required extensive public debate.



"I would rather have this law discussed by the public first. It should not only be debated by the Shura, it should be debated in newspapers first because it can be misused," Khashoggi said.



"I don't want anything to affect my freedom and we don't want Saudi Arabia to be another Iran."





What is it now?

Posted by Robert

Saudi Arabia: Woman Kicked Out of Muslim Mall for Wearing Nail Polish – Might Turn Someone On!

A very interesting post from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ about women in Saudi malls. This follows this post about McDonald's in Saudi Arabia. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Woman Kicked Out of Muslim Mall for Wearing Nail Polish – Might Turn Someone On!


By Debbie Schlussel



Over the years, I’ve written a great deal about how the Sunni government of Saudi Arabia cooperates with Al-Qaeda and its Wahhabi masses that populate the country. It’s the only way our “allies in the war on terror” can hold power and keep the Qaeda supporters from taking over, as they have in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and will soon elsewhere because Bush and Obama pioneered the “art” of the Muslim democracy fantasy. In that context, a couple of weeks ago, the Saudi religious police–the muttaween–kicked a woman out of a Saudi mall for committing the “indecency to Islam” of wearing nail polish. Might turn a guy on, and then he’ll have the legit “nail polish defense” because, after all, he shouldn’t be held responsible for putting his hormones and libido in check after seeing the nail laquer. Below is he video of the Saudi religious police’s nail polish encounter. Alhamdillullah [praise allah], the nail polish sluttiness epidemic has been banished. On the other hand, if I only had a dime for every haughty Muslim woman in a hijab or niqab wearing layers of make-up thicker than Rosie O’Donnell. If I only had a nickel for each time one of those woman looked at me disdainfully because I wasn’t covered in a sheet, as if I’m immodest. And yet they wear this thick make-up and nail polish, which kinda defeats the purpose of being totally covered, doesn’t it?



Behead The Nail Polish That Insults Islam



Now the Saudi religious police are pretending to be upset over this and claiming it was a rogue action, but only because they got caught on video. Look at how many of ‘em are there. This wasn’t a rogue thing. It was–and remains–the usual Muttaween MO. These are the same religious police who forced girls to remain in a burning school and die, because men might see them if they let them out to escape the burning building. And, hey, they might get turned on.



More:



The head of the Saudi religious police has come out strongly against one of his men who ordered a woman to leave a mall because she was wearing nail polish, a local daily reported on Monday.



“The world is manufacturing airplanes and we are still telling a woman ‘leave the mall because you’ve got nail polish on your fingers’,” local daily Al-Watan quoted Sheikh Abdullatiff Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh as saying.



The woman had defied the orders as she filmed her argument with the policeman and posted it on YouTube, in a video that attracted more than a million hits in the first few days after it went online.



“I was very disappointed by what I have seen. The matter has been exaggerated and negatively exploited,” Sheikh, head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, said.



See, that’s the money quote. Normal people with decent Western values have taken note and given us bad publicity.



The three and a half minute video posted on May 23 shows members of the notorious commission telling the woman to “get out of here (the mall).”



But she refuses to comply, saying: “I’m staying and I want to know what you’re going to do about” it.



“It’s none of your business if I wear nail polish,” the unidentified woman, who is not seen on tape, is heard shouting at bearded men from the feared religious force.



“You are not in charge of me,” she defiantly shouts back, referring to new constraints imposed earlier this year on the religious police, banning them from harassing Saudi women over their behaviour and attire.



“The government has banned you from coming after us,” she told the men, adding “you are only supposed to provide advice, and nothing more.”



At one point during the video, she cautions the religious police that she has already posted the exchange online.



And in the end, the nail polish wearer and her religious police banishers have a lot in common: they hate Jews. They hate Israel. So, it’s not like I worry for this chick.



Still, if you think this ain’t comin’ to America, just give it a few centuries (or, perhaps, just decades).



It is not clear if the woman was eventually forced to leave the mall.

Obammigration: 102,000 Saudi Muslim Visas to US Approved (w/in a Week!) in ’11

A very interesting post from www.debbieschlussel.com about Saudis being allowed to immigrate to the United States! This follows this post about bad lobbying on behalf of terrorist charities. . This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!




Obammigration: 102,000 Saudi Muslim Visas to US Approved (w/in a Week!) in ’11

By Debbie Schlussel



Whoever the Republican Presidential nominee is, let’s hope that, if elected to the White House, he turns off the spigot of visa rubber-stamping to America.  (But don’t hold your breath.)  Last week, Barack Hussein Obama announced that he was going to make it even easier for foreigners to come to America on visitor and student visas. He made the absurd announcement–appropriately–at Disney World.  But he’s apparently already made it very easy for Saudi Muslims, to the detriment of America’s national security.   Last year, Saudi applications for visas to the United States more than quadrupled from 25,000 in 2010 to 110,000 in 2011.  Even worse is the fact that a whopping 93%–or 102,300– of these applications were approved, 75% of them–nearly 77,000–within a week (!) of the application.













Shukran [Thanks], American Dummies!



(Saudi 9/11 Flag By David Lunde/Lundesigns)



That means that there was little–if any!–scrutiny and background check for most of these applicants from the country from which 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers emanated. Helloooo . . . ? Anyone home? It’s outrageous, but no one is paying attention. Nobody cares. We don’t know who they are–and neither does the government. The problem is that there are over 500,000 illegal aliens who are visa violators and/or overstays. And of those, we have no idea where they are or what they are planning. A good number of those are Muslims. And there’s no doubt that some of these 100,000-plus Saudi Muslims in America will become part of that number of illegals in our midst. Even if only one percent–or over a thousand Saudi Muslim aliens–are visa overstays, that’s 1,000 Saudi Muslims that could be up to no good, and we won’t find out until it’s too late. And that’s being optimistic.



More from Muslim Arab publication Asharq Al-Awsat:



The US embassy in Riyadh revealed that 110,000 Saudi nationals applied for a visa to visit the US in 2011, an increase of 25,000 from the previous year. The embassy also revealed that 93 percent of these visa applications were approved, and 75 percent of visa application approvals were issued within one week.











Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, the US embassy’s Non-Immigrant Visa Chief, Robin A. Busse . . . called on Saudi students to apply as soon as possible for student visas to the US, saying this should be not less than 3 months before their course is set to begin.



As for claims that some questions contained on the visa application form are offensive, such as questions whether the applicant has every had any involvement with a terrorist organization or prostitution, he stressed that these questions are asked by US embassies across the world, under the US immigration act and approved by US congress.



For his part, US Consul General at the US embassy in Riyadh, Glen Keiser revealed that the number of Saudi Arabian nationals applying for visas to visit the US has risen by 100 percent over the past 4 years. He also revealed that more Saudi Arabians apply for visas to visit the US than any other nationality around the world.



Um, since we approved 93% of them and 75% within a week of applying, can you blame them? We are opening the floodgates to the country where Osama Bin Laden, were he alive today, would win free elections.



Statistics also revealed that 66,000 of the 110,000 Saudi visa applicants in 2011 applied for a visa at the Riyadh embassy, and that approximately a quarter of these applicants were seeking to study in the US.



Keiser also told Asharq Al-Awsat that the US visa application process is currently under review to make this faster and easier, and that this review is expected to make 35 percent of administrative procedures redundant.



HUH? This rubber-stamping process isn’t fast and easy enough???



Keiser added that the number of Saudi nationals seeking to obtain a visa to the US fell sharply following the 9/11 attacks, but this rose to and even outstripped previous levels in the subsequent years as relations improved between the two countries. Keiser said that the majority of visas to the US are granted to the private sector, and that 3 out of 4 Saudi applicants are businessmen.



BARF. I, frankly, don’t even understand why we have a visa process for Saudi Arabia and most of these countries, if we aren’t going to take the time to scrutinize those who want entry into America.



We might as well just say “come on in, future terrorists!” Marhaba [Arabic for "Welcome"]!

Iranians training Taliban: "Our religions and our histories are different but our target is the same. We both want to kill Americans."

This is an interesting article from www.jihadwatch.org about a coordination between Shi'ite Iran and the Sunni Taliban. This follows this post about Obama's criticisms of Israel. Another issue is Barack Obama's failure to dry up money rogue states by allowinng domestic offshore oil drilling instead of sending oil revenues to nations like Iran and Venezuela and everybody concerned about anti-Americanism should support this. For more posts like this click here.

Iranians training Taliban: "Our religions and our histories are different but our target is the same. We both want to kill Americans."

If I had a nickel for all the times people in audiences where I've spoken, or emailers to this site, or learned analysts with whom I've debated, or any number of other people have told me confidently that Islam is not a monolith, that the umma is rent by deep divisions, and that the simple Sunni-Shi'ite divide about which every schoolchild knows would preclude any large-scale cooperative jihad action -- if I had a nickel for every one, I'd be able to buy that Jihad Watch learjet I had to return when Jamal Badawi reneged on his promise.
Islam is indeed not a monolith. The umma is indeed rent by deep divisions. Sunnis and Shi'ites do indeed hate each other. You'll note that the Taliban rep quoted here even says that the Iranians and the Taliban have different religions. But will Sunnis and Shi'ites cooperate in jihad activity? Sure, no problem. Iranian already funds Hamas. And now this.
"Iranians train Taliban to use roadside bombs," by Miles Amoore in The Sunday Times, March 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):
TALIBAN commanders have revealed that hundreds of insurgents have been trained in Iran to kill Nato forces in Afghanistan.
The commanders said they had learnt to mount complex ambushes and lay improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which have been responsible for most of the deaths of British troops in Helmand province. [...]
According to the commanders, Iranian officials paid them to attend three-month courses during the winter. [...]
Karl Eikenberry, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, recently described signs of co-operation between Iran and the Taliban as disturbing.
"Iran or elements within Iran have provided training assistance and some weapons to the Taliban," he said.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has publicly backed his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai. But American and British officials have accused Iran of playing a double game by giving covert backing to the Taliban.
Shi'ite Iran had long opposed the Sunni-dominated Taliban. The reason for the change was summarised by one Taliban commander who said of the Iranians: "Our religions and our histories are different but our target is the same. We both want to kill Americans."
Posted by Robert

The Killer's Profile

A hat tip from www.hughhewitt.com on the killer's profile and how you can help the victims. See also the link here about the initial shock of this!

Friday, November 06, 2009
The Killer's Profile
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:50 AM This Washington Post profile of the killer at Fort Hood will leave many inside the Army wondering who ought to have been responsible for removing him from the military. A caller yesterday raised the question of whether fear of being charged with anti-Muslim bigotry restrained his superiors and co-workers, and one can certainly see how cases like that of the flying Imams, discussed by Powerline's Scott Johnson here and here, can lead ordinary people to refuse to raise issues of concern about aberrant behavior by co-workers who are Muslim. Such reticence can only be remedied by a clearly articulated policy within the military of anonymity and protection for individuals who make reports of alarming behavior based upon anti-war/pro-jihadist statements.To my surprise and dismay, Congress will not break even for a day to join the country in mourning.

Thursday, November 05, 2009
Soldiers Angels and Fort Hood
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:31 PM I have been assured by members of the Soldiers Angels family that they have many representatives in the Fort Hood area. If you'd like to help the efforts on behalf of victims of today's massacre, you can make a donation to SoldiersAngels.com and ask that it be directed to that effort.

For CAIR, Duplicity is the Best Defense

A timely article about one of the most radical Muslim groups in the United States. See also here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/wahhabi-corridor.html and here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/while-america-sleeps-how-islam.html H/t www.JewishWorldReview.com


www.JewishWorldReview.com Sept. 14, 2009
For CAIR, Duplicity is the Best Defense
By Steven Emerson

The group fancies itself as the Islamic ADL or Arab NAACP. Why does it still have even an iota of credibility? Bookmark in order to forward to media outlets the next time one of its leaders is given a voice
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com Evasions, omissions and half truths — the stock in trade of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — abound in a recently issued document in which the group seeks to debunk what it describes as "Internet disinformation" about it.
The document, posted on the group's web site, provides no specific examples of the so-called disinformation, simply summarizing the allegations by what it terms "a small but vocal group of anti-Muslim bigots" in words chosen to fit its purposes.
The CAIR document, which touts the organization's supposed "principled advocacy of civil liberties, interfaith relations and justice for all people" back to its founding in 1994, ignores its roots in a Hamas support network or its consistent record of criticizing terror and terror-financing investigations. Instead, it delivers ad hominem attacks on the critics, painting them all as bigots and Islamophobes.
To set the record straight, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has prepared a meticulous point-by-point 23-page analysis of CAIR's claims, challenging the group's typical CAIRlessness with the facts. To see the IPT Report, click here.

Here are just some of the highlights drawn from both documents:
CAIR provides a detailed and upbeat account of its own founding by Omar Ahmed and Nihad Awad, reporting that they left their respective jobs as president and public relations director of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) in order to focus their efforts on a new group dedicated to "combating anti-Muslim discrimination nationwide."
But the IPT rebuttal provides a less rose-colored view. It notes that IAP, the acknowledged former home of CAIR founders Awad and Ahmad, also was a founding member of the Palestine Committee — an organization that an internal IAP report described as a Muslim Brotherhood creation "whose job is to make the Palestinian cause victorious and to support it with what it needs of media, money, men and all of that." The memo also called on Committee members to "increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas."

In addition to spreading Hamas propaganda, the rebuttal observes, IAP helped organize multiple fundraisers that featured Hamas leaders along with songs and skits praising Hamas.
The IPT analysis dismisses a defense raised by CAIR that cites retired FBI official Michael Rolince as saying in 2007 there were no "cold, hard facts" to support suspicions about the group.
Rolince's quoted statement, the rebuttal notes, "is trumped by two recent letters from the FBI." One, from James Finch, special agent in charge of the Oklahoma City field office, reports that the Bureau has broken off communication with CAIR until "certain issues" are addressed by CAIR national leaders.
The other, an April 28, 2009 letter from FBI congressional liaison Richard Powers to U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, is more specific: "[U]ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner," Powers states.
The IPT analysis further notes that CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the government's case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), and that FBI Special Agent Lara Burns labeled CAIR as a front group for Hamas at the HLF trial in October 2008.
"We unequivocally condemn terrorism," CAIR proclaims, adding that "any group that hurts civilians deserves condemnation." Indeed, the group says, "our track record of success solidly repudiates extremist arguments that Muslims cannot get fair treatment in our nation."
CAIR lists examples of what it terms its history of "principled advocacy for just and peaceful resolutions to conflicts even when that advocacy requires stances that are not viewed as politically correct." It further notes that it issued a statement on March 11, 2009, declaring, "We unequivocally condemn all acts of terrorism, whether carried out by al-Qa'ida, the Real IRA, FARC, Hamas, ETA, or any other group designated by the U.S. Department of State as a 'Foreign Terrorist Organization.'"
But the IPT analysis provides multiple examples of "CAIR officials being directly asked about Hamas and Hizballah, only to see them duck the question or stubbornly refuse to condemn either terrorist organization." It quotes, in full, evasive answers given to interviewers by Awad, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR Legislative Affairs Director Corey Saylor and CAIR-Chicago's Ahmed Rehab showing unequivocally that CAIR officials have adamantly refused to condemn Hamas or Hizballah. Awad himself, notes the IPT dossier, has expressed explicit support for Hamas.
And CAIR Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid, it notes, downplayed the threat of Hamas rockets fired at Israel, terming them "a few cheap, homemade, makeshift rockets being fired across the border."

IPT rejects the argument that CAIR's success debunks "extremist arguments that Muslims cannot get fair treatment in our nation," declaring, "the notion that the U.S. is unfair toward Muslims often is at the heart of CAIR's message." It cites CAIR's critical reaction to a string of prosecutions of Muslims accused of helping finance terrorist groups, including those of HLF, a "Virginia jihad" network, and Florida professor Sami Al-Arian — an admitted supporter of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Stating that "the majority of CAIR's financial support comes from American Muslims."
The group defends itself against complaints of an undue reliance on overseas funding by suggesting it is no different in this regard from many groups — including the government itself. "The U.S. government, corporations and many other non-profit organizations — such as the American Red Cross — routinely receive money from foreign nationals," it says.
IPT's response focuses detailed attention on no fewer than five overseas missions by CAIR officials to solicit money, "including at least two trips abroad in 2006 seeking millions of dollars� from wealthy Gulf donors."
CAIR assails criticism of its co-founder, Awad, for a March 1994 statement in which he declared his support of the Hamas movement — partly on the grounds that he made his comment seven months before Hamas' first suicide bombing and nine months before the government identified Hamas as a specially designated terrorist.
That defense, the IPT rebuttal notes, ignores the fact that the Hamas charter, rejecting peace initiatives and declaring Jihad to be "a duty binding on all Muslims," was issued in 1988 — and was distributed by the IAP while Awad was an officer of that group.
Moreover, the rebuttal adds, Awad had participated in a secret meeting of Hamas supporters in Philadelphia in September 1993, called to discuss ways to derail U.S.-led peace efforts opposed by Hamas.
CAIR describes efforts to discredit it by reporting on terrorism-related activities by its former employees and board members as "McCarthy-like" guilt by association tactics. "CAIR has hundreds of board members and employees and thousands of supporters. It would be illogical and unfair to hold CAIR responsible for the personal activities of all these people," it contends.
The IPT analysis responds that this line of argument would be valid "had CAIR been tainted by an isolated case or two." But in this case, it says, "CAIR misleadingly explains away the arrests of four of its employees and fund raisers while ignoring at least three other cases. That CAIR expresses no concern about this volume says plenty about the organization's ability to be candid about itself."
CAIR concludes by arguing that it "represents a minority in the United States that is often treated as suspect and frequently subjected to discrimination," and that it pursues a "mission of promoting justice and mutual understanding." Its detractors, it contends, are "nativists, bigots and those who seek to profit from the Islamophobic 'fear industry.'"
In order to deflect attention from its support for terrorism and radical Islam, CAIR makes wild and unsubstantiated accusations about its critics. As the IPT memo notes, however, the statements and actions made by CAIR in support of terrorism, all annotated and backed up with specific evidence, shows that CAIR is part of the support network for terrorism in the United States.
To read the full version of CAIR's claims and IPT's point-by-point response, click here.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and considered one of the leading world authorities on Islamic extremist networks, financing and operations. He now serves as the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, one of the world's largest archival data and intelligence institutes on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups.

Obsession - The Movie about Islam

On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, well, now it's a little after that, but it still applies, I wanted to let you know about this movie which documents radical Islam and the motivation that some Muslims get from their reading of the Quran (Koran). Anyway, I hope you find this interesting and informative.

Controversial "Obsession" movie delivered nationwide
The problem with Muslim condemnation of this movie is that, all the scenes alluded to as being "inflammatory"-- such as children being encouraged to become suicide bombers -- do, in fact, occur, probably daily. More on this story."Controversial film on Islam delivered nationwide, byYonat Shimron for the News Observer, September 13:
Bundled in home-delivered editions of The News & Observer today is a paid insert featuring a controversial DVD on Islam that has stirred anger nationwide.
Anger among who?
The documentary, "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," features scenes of Muslim children being encouraged to become suicide bombers, interspersed with those of Nazi rallies. The two-year-old film was produced by Raphael Shore, a Canadian who lives in Israel, and was directed by Wayne Kopping of South Africa. When no traditional distributors picked it up, the film was screened on college campuses. This month, it is being distributed in more than 70 newspapers across the nation, including two other McClatchy newspapers, The Charlotte Observer and The Miami Herald."There is no greater threat than radical Islam," said Gregory Ross, spokesman for the Clarion Fund, a New-York based nonprofit organization that is paying newspapers to distribute the DVD. "It needs to be pushed to the forefront of the political discussion."Ross said the DVD was timed to coincide with the seventh anniversary of the terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001. He said it is "purely coincidental" that this September also is the holy month of Ramadan.[...]Muslims across the nation and in the Triangle said they are disappointed by the film."It adds fuel to the fire and devalues the work we do," said Khalilah Sabra, an organizer with the Raleigh chapter of the Muslim American Society, which lists "promoting understanding" as its mission.The film features footage of elementary schoolchildren reciting mantras such as "When I wander into the entrance of Jerusalem, I'll turn into a suicide warrior."Its aim is to liken radical Islam to Nazism and to promote the state of Israel, said Omid Safi, a professor of Islamic Studies at UNC-Chapel Hill, who has seen the film several times...In other words, even though the movie appears to differentiate between "radical" Islam, which even Muslims usually admit is "bad," and just Islam -- that's still not good enough.
Posted by Raymond at September 13, 2008 10:11 AM
Print this entry Email this entry del.icio.us