JIHAD DEATH COUNT
The List of Islamic Terror Attacks Since September 11th, 2001. Sunday, October 9, 2005
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog
*
THEIR PERSPECTIVE
www.coxandforkum.com
*
ABLE DANGER UPDATE: ANOTHER 9/11 COMMISSION OMISSION
One of the bloggers that has kept an eye on Able Danger updates, AJ Strata, notes an editorial in today's Washington Times written by F. Michael Maloof. Maloof reveals that Congress at one point wanted a national network of cross-functional centers doing work pioneered by the Able Danger team and its mother program, LIWA, but that the Pentagon wanted to pursue its own program instead. Maloof argues that the failure to push NOAH into existence lost us our best shot at stopping the 9/11 terrorists:
Mr. Weldon first sought help from Eileen Preisser, who ran the Information Dominance Center at the U.S. Army's Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA) at Fort Belvoir, Va. He then asked this writer to work with Ms. Preisser to see how the Army initiative could be expanded into a national effort.
As Mr. Weldon envisioned it, the national collaborative center would have been comprised of a system of mini-centers or "pods" of some 34 entities from the U.S. intelligence community and law enforcement agencies to function in a common operating environment.
It would not have been just another analytical unit. The effect of data-mining information that had already been analyzed was to game-plan particular issues and offer options to policymakers and national commanders to deal with them.
Who is Maloof and where does NOAH fit into the counterterrorist effort, pre- or post-9/11? Don't bother checking the 9/11 report. It mentions neither, even though the Stratasphere seems to have had no troubles tracking this man down. Strata found out that Maloof worked with Richard Perle, and after 9/11 received an unusual assignment: to find out if Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks specifically, or with al-Qaeda in general. As one of Strata's links note, his work on this assignment appears to have angered some at the DoD:
A veteran Pentagon employee who was a key player in the effort to find links between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida has been stripped of his security clearance, according to senior U.S. officials.
The employee, F. Michael Maloof, is associated with a Lebanese-American businessman who is under federal investigation for possible involvement in a gun-running scheme to Liberia, the West African nation embroiled in civil war. The businessman, Imad El Haje, approached Maloof on behalf of Syria to seek help in arranging a communications channel between Syria and the Defense Department. ...
Maloof is on administrative leave and hasn't been charged with wrongdoing. Those close to him contend that his clearances were pulled in retaliation for challenging the official assessment that there were no operational terrorist links between al-Qaida and Iraq.
Maloof was part of a two-man team created at the Pentagon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to find such links. The team was a predecessor to the Pentagon's controversial Office of Special Plans.
Maloof and David Wurmser, who's now an aide to Undersecretary of State John Bolton, claimed they had found evidence that Sunni and Shiite Muslim groups, as well as secular Islamic countries, cooperate to harm the United States despite their many differences.
The excuse for pulling Maloof's security clearance was his contacts with Imad el-Haje, a Lebanese contact that tried to concoct an arrangement between Saddam and the US to avoid war. In May 2003, Maloof had his security clearance revoked for contacting el-Haje. By November, the US had acknowledged that the contact represented a legitimate attempt on our part to resolve the impasse short of military action:
Early this year, a Lebanese-American businessman, Imad El Haje, relayed word that Saddam would allow U.S. experts and troops into Iraq to verify that he had no weapons of mass destruction, said the officials, who requested anonymity.
El Haje sent his message through a Department of Defense official, F. Michael Maloof, who was involved in a Pentagon effort to find links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, and Richard Perle, the head of a Pentagon advisory panel who was a leading advocate of invading Iraq.
U.S. officials said none of the approaches went anywhere. They were deemed either fraudulent or attempts by Saddam to stall for time to allow international opposition to a U.S.-led attack to build, they said.
"They were all non-starters because they all involved Saddam staying in power," said a senior administration official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified.
Maloof also has an attorney -- Mark Zaid, the same attorney as Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer. Interesting, and somewhat coincidental that both figures have the same legal representation.
Be sure to read all of AJ Strata's analysis. However, I have a couple of questions myself. It seems as though the DIA likes to pull clearances on people with interesting testimony to give on issues like 9/11 and the war on terror. Is that why Maloof never gets mentioned or even interviewed by the 9/11 Commission, as far as can be told? If not, what other reason could there be? Maloof has a different opinion on the resources used by the al-Qaeda plotters for 9/11 based on his direct investigation, one of two people who went back and officially looked into the issue.
How could the 9/11 Commission have missed Maloof as a witness?
It's yet another glaring gap in the process used by the supposedly thorough and authoritative "independent" investigation into the terrorist attacks.
YEMEN'S CATCH AND RELEASE ANTI-TERROR PLAN
The Yemen government doesn't seem to take terrorism quite as seriously as we do, according to the London Telegraph. Their idea of handling terrorism goes even less further than the notorious law-enforcement approach that the United States tried during the decade prior to 9/11. Yemen takes a debate approach instead -- and it's about as effective as one might think:
A pioneering scheme to fight Islamist terror by encouraging jailed extremists to rethink their grasp of the Koran is under fire after claims that some of its "converts" have taken up arms again.
The project, launched in Yemen three years ago by an Islamic scholar, Judge Hamoud al-Hitar, has been followed closely by the British Government, which has twice invited him to lecture senior anti-terrorism officials at Scotland Yard.
The effectiveness of his technique - a theological "duel" in which he and the prisoners quote Koranic texts at each other - is in doubt, however, after reports that some al-Qaeda militants freed under the scheme have been caught fighting coalition forces in Iraq.
Among those released is the former chief bodyguard of Osama bin Laden, Nasser Al-Bahri, who has admitted that his sessions with Judge al-Hitar did nothing to diminish his belief in the leader of al-Qaeda. Instead, he suggested that many militants simply pretended to repent to gain quick release from jail.
No -- tell me it isn't so! The Yemenis and the Brits can't possibly mean that hardened terrorists, trained to resist Western interrogation techniques as well as Eastern torture, might lie about their intentions in order to get out of prison. Who could have seen that coming?
One would think that the Brits would not be so naive as to promote this kind of a program, especially after the June 7 bombings, but some apparently are. It's the same people who think that hatred consists of nothing more than a misunderstanding, and that a nice, friendly conversation cures evil. It's bad enough that we allowed this philosophy to turn our justice systems into a joke in the late 60s and 70s; now a new generation of naifs want to apply it to national security, at least overseas.
The key to understanding terrorists is to accept that evil exists. Those who target non-combatants for death because they are non-combatants just to make a political/religious point use their hatred to do evil. Having a chat and showing them the door does not transform them into peaceful debate-society denizens. Lock them up and throw away the key. Sunday, October 9, 2005
www.captainsquartersblog.com
*
NOT MY INTERNET!
Given what I am doing, I am barely off line these days (except when I sleep, and even then my dreams are sometimes wired), so I have been feeling on "en vacance" this weekend in the Santa Ynez Valley, only able to get online in spare moments when I can slip off to the WiFi at the Roasted Bean in beautiful downtown Santa Ynez (two blocks).
But.. cooled down or not... steam came out of my ears this morning when I read (via Glenn) The World Wide Web (of Bureaucrats) in the WSJ. My only quarrel with this excellent and important (to all of us, especially) oped, which opposes proposed United Nations control of the Internet, is that it is understated. "Bureaucrats"? How about "Criminals" - because that is just what many of them are! Can you imagine the conglomeration of vicious corrupt slime who gave us Oil-for-Food governing the Internet? We might as well turn in our laptops. It would be over. I couldn't agree more with the oped's conclusion:
We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression.
The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.
I have never considered myself a libertarian. But I will say this - the strongest argument I could almost imagine for libertarianism is the idea of the UN taking over the Internet.
Meanwhile, for those of you who believe in a free Internet, have a look at our latest PJ Profile Jeremy Lyon. And then scroll down for Aussie Dave. (apolgies to both bloggers for not linking them earlier - as I said, I've been away) Sunday, October 9, 2005
www.rogerlsimon.com
*
www.daybydaycartoon.com
*
Following on the heels of the Nobel Peace Prize for Mohamed ElBaradei and the IAEA, Iran announces that they’re going to proceed with uranium enrichment: Next step uranium enrichment: Iranian FM. (Hat tip: Ron.)
TEHRAN - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Friday that the next step by Iran in its nuclear programme is to start the uranium enrichment process in the Natanz plant in central Iran.
“We want to take the next step which will be the uranium enrichment process in Natanz,” Mottaki was quoted by the Mehr news agency as saying.
The foreign minister said that although Iran wanted further negotiations and would remain committed to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty and additional protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but would not give in to any demands for stopping nuclear technology.
“If the politicized IAEA resolution is not corrected, then we see no reason to continue our voluntary moves, such as implementing the IAEA additional protocol,” Mottaki said, referring to a draft bill approved in the Iranian parliament obliging the government to suspend the additional protocol.
The IAEA in a resolution last month called on Iran to stop uranium conversion in the Isfahan plant in central Iran or otherwise face its case being referred to the United Nations Security Council.
Iran has so far rejected the IAEA resolution and warned with harsh reaction if the Iran case is referred to the UNSC.
Good work, ElBaradei.
TURKEY'S PAST
Some historical perspective on Turkey, as the European Union prepares to admit this Islamic nation into their borderless commonwealth: Turkey: From Failed Reforms to a Modern Jihad Genocide.
Merkel set to take over as German leader. (Hat tip: Ron.)
Christian Democrat leader Angela Merkel is set to replace Gerhard Schröder as Germany’s next chancellor, in a political deal that will see the departure of Mr Schröder from the national political stage, senior members of the ruling Social Democrats have told the Financial Times.
Ms Merkel’s expected victory in the battle for the chancellorship is likely to be announced on Monday, following a meeting on Sunday evening in Berlin between Mr Schröder and Ms Merkel, according to the SPD politicians, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The two leaders met on Thursday evening for four hours to agree the framework of a SPD-CDU grand coalition, but refused on Friday to disclose details. The talks also include SPD leader Franz Müntefering, and Bavarian premier Edmund Stoiber.
Officials close to Mr Schröder said the chancellor would not become vice chancellor and foreign minister in the coalition, despite pressure from within the SPD for him do so. “The chancellor has done what was necessary, to ensure the SPD is on an equal footing with the CDU in the coalition,” one official said. Sunday, October 9, 2005
Mary Mapes Hits Bloggers and MSM in Upcoming Book. This latest quote from Mapes’ book is stupid and dishonest in so many ways it boggles the mind:
“Faxing changes a document in so many ways, large and small, that analyzing a memo that had been faxed — -in some cases not once, but twice — -was virtually impossible. The faxing destroyed the subtle arcs and lines in the letters. The characters bled into each other. The details of how the typed characters failed to line up perfectly inside each word were lost.”
In other words, she’s arguing that faxing a typewritten document from the 1970s is more likely to make it appear as if it were printed with modern proportional typefaces, and would alter the spacing to exactly match a Microsoft Word replica.
 |
Daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten is facing accusations that it deliberately provoked and insulted Muslims by publishing twelve cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed.
The newspaper urged cartoonists to send in drawings of the prophet, after an author complained that nobody dared to illustrate his book on Mohammed. The author claimed that illustrators feared that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed. Twelve illustrators heeded the newspaper’s call, and sent in cartoons of the prophet, which were published in the newspaper one week ago.
Daily newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad said one Muslim, at least, had taken offence.
‘This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims,’ Imam Raed Hlayhel wrote in a statement. ‘Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world. We demand an apology!’
Jyllands-Posten described the cartoons as a defence for ‘secular democracy and right to expression’. Hlayhel, however, said the newspaper had abused democracy with the single intention of humiliating Muslims. ...
Flemming Rose, cultural editor at the newspaper, denied that the purpose had been to provoke Muslims. It was simply a reaction to the rising number of situations where artists and writers censured themselves out of fear of radical Islamists, he said. ‘Religious feelings cannot demand special treatment in a secular society,’ he added. ‘In a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughingstock.’
Imam Raed Hlayhel, who thinks democracy is worthless for Muslims unless it’s not really democracy, has been in the news previously when he said in a sermon that Danish women were asking to be raped by Muslim men.
It is not the first time Hlayhel has created headlines in Denmark. One year ago, he became the target of criticism from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, when he said in a sermon during Friday prayer, that Danish women’s behaviour and dress invited rape.
UPDATE: Some of the illustrations have been blogged by Uriasposten.
UPDATE: The full collection is here: Jyllands-Posten - Verden i fotos. (Hat tip: nadineken.) Saturday, October 8, 2005
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog
*
CAN THE DEMOCRATS TAKE THE HOUSE?
I talked to a Republican Congressman a few weeks ago who expressed concern that the party could lose the House of Representatives in 2006. Current polling is pretty bad; the current Real Clear Politics average approval rating for Congress is only 33%. And it's been a while since there was any news that could be considered helpful to Republican Congressional candidates.
This morning's Washington Times discusses the Democrats' chances:
House Republicans have taken some hits but should still be able to win a majority in 2006 because there just aren't enough opportunities for Democrats, Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, the man charged with House Republicans' campaign operation, said yesterday.
Mr. Reynolds dismissed polls that show poor ratings for the Republican-controlled Congress, saying while overall impressions are bad, voters still like their own local representative.
Democrats said their own polling finds different results. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) said polls showing high dissatisfaction with Republicans in general have translated into a lack of support for individual members of Congress.
Democrats would have to win 15 seats to gain control.
Politicians and observers are wondering whether 2006 could be a repeat of 1994, when Republicans captured a majority for the first time in four decades. But Mr. Reynolds said there aren't enough races to do that. He said in 1994 there were 106 races that were considered competitive by pundits. This year, political race-watcher Charlie Cook says there are just 27, and race-watcher Stuart Rothenberg says there are 37.
That's the conventional wisdom: the parties have redistricted themselves into so many safe seats that there aren't enough close ones for power to shift much in the near term. It's also true that while the current approval rating for Congress is low, it is better than it was in 1994; I'm going from memory here, but I'm pretty sure I saw approval scores as low as 14% prior to the 1994 election.
Still, I'm worried about the party's prospects next year. Assessments of how many seats are at risk depend largely on assumptions about turnout, and there are several reasons why Republican turnout could be low next year. The party's base is very unhappy about two issues: illegal immigration and spending. The first has been true for a while; the second has come to a head in the wake of Congress's shoveling of money at the Gulf states after Hurricane Katrina. Unless Republican Congressmen demonstrate to both their constitutents and their financial backers that they are making a serious and reasonably successful effort to restrain hurricane relief so that it doesn't turn into the biggest pork extravaganza in history, and also balance as much hurricane spending as possible with cuts in other programs, I think the base's frustration may well result in unexpectedly low turnout, with 1994-like results.
The main cause for optimism is that Republicans get to run against Democrats. I'm glad to see that the Democrats are still pinning their hopes on their silly "culture of corruption" theme. Even in politics, a strategy has to be built on at least a kernel of reality, and the "corruption" theme has none. By next fall, with Tom DeLay laughing at Ronnie Earle from his restored position as Majority Leader, and Bill Frist having been cleared by the SEC, the Democrats will be looking for a new catch-phrase. Let's hope it's too late by then. Saturday, October 8, 2005
www.powerlineblog.com
*
RIVER GATE CONTINUES IN HAQLANIYAH
By Bill Roggio
Haqlaniyah appears to be the focus of Coalition efforts at this stage of Operation River Gate. More weapons caches and improvised explosive devices are uncovered. A Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED or car bomb) is discovered at a school in Haqlaniyah and destroyed by Coalition air support. Coalition Forces uncovered a weapons cache outside of Haqlaniyah which "consisted of bomb-making materials, numerous weapons and ammunition, and several computer discs with Arabic writing."
The computer discs will be analyzed in hopes of gaining intelligence on insurgent activities and their command and organizational structure. As we have seen numerous times throughout Iraq, and most recently in Hit, the right piece of intelligence can lead to the destruction of entire terror cells and brigades. The Haditha-Haqlaniyah-Barwana region was a bastion for al Qaeda in Iraq, and Zarqawi is believed to have had a home in the area. Any information gathered from this region will be scrutinized by Coalition intelligence. Task Force 626 lies in wait to pounce on Zarqawi's command.
Update: Antonio Castaneda has an article on Haditha well worth reading. He is embedded with the Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment, who are operating in Haditha. He notes the change in the region; "Marines note the war, at least in this region, has evolved since their last tour. Insurgents are now hiding instead of controlling entire neighborhoods." The Marines report their roles have switched from strictly warfighting to that of policeman, detective and diplomat. Sunday, October 9, 2005
http://billroggio.com
*
WHEN EVEN A LEFTIST RECOGNIZES BRITISH ANTI-SEMITISM
A blistering piece by Nick Cohen in the New Statesman accurately describes the firestorm of anti-Jewish hatred that now flares across the British cultural landscape. Cohen is one of those brave few on the left who have defied their comrades and supported the war in Iraq. For this they have been vilified and bullied by those same comrades. But Cohen here describes the further twist provided by the racial identity marker of his surname:
'I learned it was one thing being called "Cohen" if you went along with liberal orthodoxy, quite another when you pointed out liberal betrayals. Your argument could not be debated on its merits. There had to be a malign motive. You had to support Ariel Sharon. You had to be in the pay of "international" media moguls or neoconservatives. You had to have bad blood. You had to be a Jew...
'As the months passed, and Iraqis were caught between a criminally incompetent occupation and an "insurgency" so far to the right it was off the graph, I had it all. A leading figure on the left asked me to put him in touch with members of the new government. "I knew it! I knew it!" he cried when we next met. "They want to recognise Israel."
'I experienced what many blacks and Asians had told me: you can never tell. Where people stand on the political spectrum says nothing about their visceral beliefs. I found the far left wasn't confined to the chilling Socialist Workers Party but contained many scrupulous people it was a pleasure to meet and an education to debate. Meanwhile, the centre was nowhere near as moderate as it liked to think. One minute I would be talking to a BBC reporter or liberal academic and think him a civilised man; the next, he would be screaming about the Jews...
'I could go on. The moment when bewilderment settled into a steady scorn, however, was when the Guardian ran a web debate entitled: "David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen are enough to make a good man anti-Semitic". Gorgeously, one vigilant reader complained that the title was prejudiced - the debate should be headlined: "David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen are enough to make a good man, or woman, anti-Semitic"...
'To explain away a global phenomenon as a rational reaction to Israeli oppression, you have once again to turn the Jew into a supernatural figure whose existence is the cause of discontents throughout the earth. You have to revive anti-Semitism.'
It appears that it has taken some time for Cohen to realise the precise nature and extent of this madness that has consumed British public life. However, while he is correct to identify the extraordinary axis between the left and Islamic fascism, he has not spotted the fact that this group-think also embraces much of the right. Conservatively-minded middle-Britons, who start from the premise that there would be no threat to themselves from frightening Islamists if only Britain had pulled up the drawbridge across the Atlantic, fervently believe that the global jihad is indeed a rational reaction to Israeli oppression.
Now Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks has at last spoken out about what is happening. He has warned in the Jewish Chronicle of
'a new wave of anti-Semitism, saying that "there have been times, the first in my memory, when it has been uncomfortable to be a Jew in Britain"...
'In the message, Sir Jonathan cites calls, backed by Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, to abolish Holocaust Memorial Day because it is offensive to Muslims. He also refers to remarks with "anti-Semitic undertones" by public figures, the threatened academic boycott of Israel earlier this year and Church debates over divestment from Israel.
'He says that Israel and Jews are being cast into the role of scapegoat for the troubles thrown up by rapid global change, even though they are not responsible for them. The new anti-Semitism differed from the old in being "political rather than racial, focused on Jews as a nation rather than Jews as individuals. But it has adopted and adapted all the old myths, from the Blood Libel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Although Israel has nothing to do with such events as "the millions of Muslims murdered by their fellow Muslims" in Iraq, Sudan and elsewhere, it is being turned into "the scapegoat of the 21st century," the Chief Rabbi says.'
The Chief Rabbi’s intervention is significant. Hitherto, he has been circumspect, possibly reflecting the fact that, like so many British Jews for whom the illusion of an idyll has now been cruelly shattered, he was reluctant to admit to the destruction of the myth that the Jews of Britain were safe. Moreover, the Jewish community in Britain is polarised; there are many British Jews – mainly on the left – who would line up alongside the very people who have subjected Cohen and the rest of us to this odious vilification, and who resolutely deny the resurgence of anti-Jewish feeling, blaming it all instead on Ariel Sharon, the neocons and George W Bush. But the fact that someone of the stature of the Chief Rabbi has now come out and said it, loud and clear, means that it will no longer be so easy to dismiss as the ravings of a few cranks, paranoiacs and Sharon-groupies. It forces itself onto the mainstream agenda. It requires an answer by the political class. October 7, 2005
www.melaniephillips.com/diary
*
SHEIK YASIN MAKING WAVES IN AUSTRALIA
Jihad Watch reader Terminator provides an update to this article concerning American-born Sheik Khalid Yasin. Is Mr. Yasin pushing "Australian tolerance to its limit?" Read the NineMSN interview here.
SHEIK KHALID YASIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ISLAMIC BROADCASTING GROUP, DURING A LECTURE: And how can you put a sacred trust in the hands of a non-Muslim? There's no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend. If you prefer the clothing of the kafirs over the clothing of the Muslims, most of those names that's on most of those clothings is faggots, homosexuals and lesbians.
BRENDAN NELSON, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING: The idea that you would come here and promulgate views which not only will demean and denigrate certain individuals and sections of Australian society, but in the end, ultimately, I think, incite divisions and violence in Australian society, there should be no place for that.
SHEIK KHALID YASIN: Some people characterise me as a radical cleric. I'm not more radical than Mahatma Gandhi or John Pilger or Jesus Christ or anybody else who's trying to preach a moral word.
SARAH FERGUSON: Sheikh Yasin is about to test Australian tolerance to its limits. He wants to be a leader in Australia's Islamic community as an Islamic media mogul, and he's been raising money here for his own radio and TV stations. Starting with radio broadcasts, Yasin has big plans for what he calls the Purpose of Life Islamic TV channel.
SHEIK KHALID YASIN: Wherever Discovery Channel is at, the Purpose of Life channel will be. We believe that Purpose of Life as a channel and as a theme will become just as generic and just as common and attractive as Discovery Channel.
SARAH FERGUSON: But it seems Sheikh Yasin wasn't really counting on discovery, for Sunday has discovered many of the claims he makes to support his project, and indeed much of his CV, are false. The issue is that he's claimed to have those qualifications. I've checked. He doesn't. Does that concern you?
WALID ALI, MANAGING DIRECTOR ISLAMIC BROADCASTING GROUP: Yes, I guess it would concern me. I would really need to understand why he would make those claims if they weren't true.
SHEIK KHALID YASIN DURING A LECTURE: You forget your Islamic identity. Now you have become compromised through some kind of intellectuality.
Read it all.
INSIDE A SCHOOL OF JIHAD TERROR IN INDONESIA
"School that nurtured the Islamic call to arms," from The Australian, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
The Islamic school in Tenggulun has some of the most notorious alumni in the world, having been a place of learning, preaching and refuge to many of the key protagonists in the October 2002 Bali bombings, which killed 202 people.
Today, it has 150 students from all over the far-reaching archipelago and, according to its founder Muhammed Khozin, he teaches his students to do with words what his brothers chose to do with bombs.
The students The Australian met there yesterday quizzed this reporter about his religious beliefs and debated the issue of whether the holy trinity in Christianity was false. They muttered among themselves about whether I was really a reporter or an Australian intelligence agent....
Welcome to the breeding ground of radical Islam in Indonesia. It started with Jemaah Islamiah spiritual leader Abu Bakar Bashir's Ngruki school in Solo, Central Java, and has spread into other pesantren across the country....
Khozin, as well as being one of the school's founders, is the brother of three of the 2002 Bali bombers, Ali Gufron, known as Mukhlas, Amrozi and Ali Imron, who all attended and taught at the school.
As head of one of Indonesia's most notorious families, he is keen to distance his community from the second Bali bombings, which he says are "different" to the first. His brand of Islam, he says, is different. He says the community has moved on and does not want to be linked to the new "tragedy".
But to Khozin, there is no difference in his ideology and his brothers'. The difference is in how they chose to act on their anger at Westerners flaunting their liberal values. He refers to the non-Muslim community as Kaffir Dhimmi, the name the prophet Mohammed gave to the non-Muslim communities. He says it is the responsibility of Muslims to fight this group by convincing them to behave with respect towards their Muslim neighbours.
He says the fight should not be "physical" but a fight with words.
Khozin does not believe that Westerners and Muslims can live side by side while Westerners continue to believe, for example, in allowing women to wear bikinis at the beach and to drink alcohol.
It is a "morality war" brought on by Australians and Westerners in general refusing to respect his culture.
This is another species of the kind of talk that clouds men's minds. Liberals tend to think that if American foreign policy were adjusted, there would be peace with the Islamic world. Some conservatives tend to think that if American immorality were reined in, there would be peace with the Islamic world. Both are tempted to wax rhapsodic about statements like Khozin's "morality war" appellation, which plays into the assumptions of both Left and Right. However, the general ignorance of Islam in the West leads all too many analysts on both the Left and the Right to breeze right past his statement about dhimmis. They don't realize that Khozin and his ilk will not acquiesce to peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims if America were suddenly to become moral (by their lights) and isolationist. Rather, Khozin and Co. would continue to believe that Allah was commanding them, after the example of Muhammad, to offer unbelievers conversion, subjugation, or death (cf. Sahih Muslim 4294). And that tripartite offer doesn't hinge on any behavior of the infidels at all. It is an offer that must be made to them simply because they are infidels.
He said his school "prepares the student to make sure foreigners do not do that in Indonesia". You only have to talk to his son, 19-year-old Afif, to know that the young people coming through the Islamic schooling system take that message to heart and maybe even beyond.
He says Bali will not be safe from terrorism until Australians and other Westerners visiting there behave in a way that is respectful of Muslim culture. Ask Afif what he wants to do when he grows up, the answer is simple: "Fight for Islam."
Then comes some wishful thinking from The Australian:
This is probably best interpreted as youthful spirit and not a declaration of jihad but his commitment is to ending what he sees as a Western corruption of his country. It shows that with such a hardline philosophy on what is and what is not acceptable, it is a fine line between fighting with words and fighting with bombs.
While Afif's uncles, Mukhlas -- the commander of the 2002 bombings -- and Amrozi, who played a key role procuring most of the equipment they needed, are facing the death penalty, he doesn't view what they did as wrong because they scared away many Westerners. He considers the Muslims who died as martyrs; he says the Westerners who died are not his concern because they were unbelievers. Sunday, October 9, 2005
http://jihadwatch.org
*
GREEN HIGHWAYS
Gates of Vienna has an extremely interesting article on the Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a controversial Islamic organization with compounds called Jamaats "scattered throughout the United States and Canada, notably in Colorado, New York, Tennessee, Georgia, and Virginia". What happens in these compounds? Newspaper articles have connected Jamaat ul-Fuqra to the Beltway Sniper, the killers of Daniel Pearl and shoebomber Richard Reid. And it seems that despite various raids since 9/11, the compounds are still out there. So what does Gates of Vienna do? Mosey on down to Red House, Virginia to get a look at one the Jamaats close up.
After waiting in line at the counter, I asked the proprietor if he had heard of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, an Islamist organization. He looked at me blankly. I mentioned that they had a compound near Red House, on Route 615. ... He seemed reluctant to give further information on the subject, perhaps not wanting to gossip to a stranger about his (presumably well-armed) neighbors and customers. However, outside the store I struck up an acquaintance with a local woman named Shirley .. she proved to have a wealth of local lore on the subject. ...
Shirley said that there are other Jamaat locations besides the compound. One of her hobbies is historical research, and recently she was tracking down old homesteads in the wilds of Charlotte County. Her maps led her down a back-country lane, a non-state route through the wilderness that required a four-wheel drive to negotiate. When she neared the old homesteads she was looking for, she was surprised to find an establishment with a sign that identified it as a "Training Camp for Young Muslim-American Men."
Some men came out to ask local historian Shirley what she was doing. After listening to the rest of Shirley's story, Baron Bodissey drove up the road to take a look at the Red House compound for himself.
Along the way I passed the Red House Volunteer Fire Department, the Mt. Zion Baptist Church, the Beautiful Zion Baptist Church, and numerous modest little houses, double-wides, and trailers, with pickup trucks and boats out front and dog kennels in the back, the normal human landscape of rural Southside Virginia. As I came around a bend I saw the compound ahead. There was a big green sign near the road in Arabic and English, with a little cinderblock guardhouse next to it flying an unidentifiable flag. Beyond the entrance numerous trailers were scattered across the hillside, fairly close together in fields of waist-high unkempt weeds. No one was in sight.
I noticed the road sign at the entrance: “Sheikh Gilani Lane,” just as described in the South Asia Terrorism Portal article.
Read the rest at Gates of Vienna. Sunday, October 9, 2005
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com
*
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.