 Script of the anti-Jihadist full length feature film BLACK is now ready! We are planning to start filming of BLACK during end December. In this regard, we are already finalizing the signing process of artistes, who would play various roles in this movie. At least 75 people will work in this film. Main objective of BLACK is to very prominently and boldly project how Muslim fanatics and Jihadists are gradually becoming active and influential in Muslim societies. It also gives a clear picture of Hindu repression in Muslim Bangladesh. BLACK challenges various Koranic verses, which goes against humanity, especially those verses, which are in favor of waging Jihad against non-Muslims. It also shows sodomy inside Madrassas; how students in Madrassas are brainwashed with Jihadist indoctrinations; adverse affect of polygamy as well repression of Muslim women; abduction and forceful conversion of Bangladeshi Hindu females etc. It is expected that, at least 3 million people will watch this movie in various cinema halls in Bangladesh, while through satellite television channels, BLACK will reach minimum 120 million Bangla speaking viewers in Bangladesh and West Bengal [in India]. We also shall make DVDs of this film at a very subsidized price, so that this film will enter a larger segment of our societies in Bangladesh and India. BLACK is the first time revolt against militant Islam and Jihad. For the first time in the history of Bangladesh, a full length feature film is being made fully with anti-Jihadist contents and dialogues. To complete making of this film in celluloid, we shall require at least an amount equivalent to US$ 120,000 while if we make this film in digital format [later to be transferred on celluloid], the total cost will be around US$ 75,000. Total length of this film is 150 minutes. We already have spent approximately US$ 5,000 in recording required songs for this movie. Philanthropists, anti-Jihadist groups and institutions, various organizations and individuals are requested to consider financially helping this project. Donors and funders of this film project will be appropriately acknowledged and their names will be shown at the beginning of the film. For details, please contact: vibfil@gmail.com
By: Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
When we started our journey, back in 2003, as one of the periodicals in Bangladesh, no one really had any problems with us. We even were receiving advertisements from the local advertisers. But, during mid 2003, when we started publishing positive articles and editorials on Israel and some other issues, which were almost considered to be taboo in Bangladesh, local advertisers swiftly turned away their faces from us. Then I was arrested on November 29 2003, at Dhaka International Airport, on my way to Tel Aviv for attending a peace conference. The then Bangladesh Nationalist Party [BNP]-led Islamist government used the state machinery in placing me on remand for 10 days, thus mentally and physically torturing with the 'hope' of extracted a confessional statement. They considered me to be a Zionist Spy. Later the government sent to an isolated cell at Dhaka Central Jail, where I was detained for 17 months in extreme hit and humidity.
In 2004 [January], the government brought sedition, treason and blasphemy charges against me. According to Bangladeshi law, sedition bears capital punishment.
I was not allowed to attend my mother's funeral when she passed away on August 9, 2004.
At the intervention of Congressman Mark Steven Kirk and relentless effort by Dr. Richard L Benkin [my Jewish brother] as well as Congressional aide Jeff Phillip, I was released on bail on April 30, 2005 from Dhaka Central Jail.
The sedition, treason and blasphemy charge is still hanging on me and every month I have to appear in the court to face trial. Though Bangladesh's present government is renewing its commitment in fighting Islamist militancy, it is reluctant in dropping the charge, fearing reaction from the Islamists.
On my release, Weekly Blitz resumed its publication in 2005 and since then, we never received even a single advertisement in our print edition. Only two or three advertisements were offered by some philanthropists and my supporters with a small amount of money, which is again not enough for Weekly Blitz to sustain for a week. But, still, my profound gratitude and admiration for those kind hearted people, who stood for us, during our difficult days.
From the mid of 2008, Weekly Blitz is again seeing extreme adversities in continuing its publication. In the same year, our office was attacked and we were evicted from our own office, illegally by some politically blessed thugs.
Thanks to Dr. Daniel Pipes and Middle East Forum, for helping us in taking a new office just in May this year. The entire amount received from MEF has already been spent for the new office and furniture.
Sensing our inability and economic adversities in running Weekly Blitz, a business tycoon with heavy affiliation with an Islamist party offered to buy the entire newspaper with an amount equivalent to US$ 300K. They even continued to offer us much higher amount, if we were ready to sell the newspaper. We knew they were planning to buy Weekly Blitz for turning it into a newspaper like all others in the Muslim nation, mostly spreading message of hatred against Israel and Jews. Their intention was to morally kill our newspaper. We did not bow to such dirty desire of the Islamists.
But, now, our very sustainability has become almost impossible. Each month, we are losing huge amount of money in continuing the print and online edition of this newspaper. For any newspaper, it is absolutely impossible to sustain without any advertisement revenue.
Can we expect, some of the philanthropists or organizations, who want this only anti-Jihadist newspaper in the Muslim world to sustain, would kindly help us with advertisements or grants? Such help is so much urgent for us. And, this is for the first time; we are making this appeal.
Please help us! And also refer our appeal to everyone you know. This is such critical time for us. Your actions and help can help us stay alive. If you are willing to help Weekly Blitz, kindly write to: ediblitz@yahoo.com You can kindly send cheques or wire transfer the amount of Advertisement Cost, Grant or Donation. Also you can donate through Paypal by visiting the website of the online edition of Weekly Blitz at www.weeklyblitz.net
 "Outside court, about a dozen people held up signs reading 'Islam is against terrorism' and 'Not in the name of Islam.'" -- Reuters, January 8 "About 20 Muslims from nearby Dearborn appeared outside the courthouse to denounce Mr. Abdulmutallab. They carried large American flags and colorful signs that read 'NOT in the name of Islam' and 'Islam is against terrorism.'" -- New York Times, January 8, first version "Dozens of Muslims from nearby Dearborn gathered outside the courthouse carrying large American flags and colorful signs that read 'NOT in the name of Islam' and 'Islam is against terrorism.'" -- New York Times, January 8, second version "About 50 Detroit-area Muslims chanted 'We are Americans' as they marched behind metal barricades outside the courthouse. Many carried U.S. flags or signs with messages such as 'Not in the name of Islam.'" -- Associated Press, January 8 "An estimated 150 people attended a peaceful demonstration, carrying large American flags and signs that read, 'Not in the Name of Islam' and 'Not in Our Name.'" -- Detroit News, January 9 Many people over the last few years have asked why Muslims have demonstrated against Muhammad cartoons, and against the Pope's remarks in Regensberg in 2006, and against a teddy bear in Sudan, but have not demonstrated against jihad violence even as they profess to condemn it.
In response to this, one of the chief talking points of disingenuous Islamic spokesmen in the U.S. has been that Muslims have been speaking out against terrorism, but that the "Islamophobic" media ignore them. In reality, however, the mainstream media is avid to find and highlight moderate Muslims who speak out against terrorism, and as you can see from above, will even inflate the numbers of those who do so if reality is too embarrassing. And it's also interesting to note that Pamela Geller and I had 200 people at the Rally for Rifqa in November, and got virtually no press coverage -- while the media wants to spotlight Muslim moderates, it has little or no interest in giving any coverage to those oppressed by Islamic supremacism. In any case, are these demonstrators sincerely going to challenge the mainstream understanding of the Islamic texts and teachings that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism? We shall see. But I won't be holding my breath. With thanks to JihadWatch 
 Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.
Heck of a job, Brownie.
The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension.
From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters."
Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.
And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.
Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."
And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.
More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."
Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking.
This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.
This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.
The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.
The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist(s)."
A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist.
Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.
Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.
 If this anonymous piece is accurate, maybe he was just practicing damage control when he notified the authorities about his son's "extremism" -- as Creeping Sharia puts it, daddy "threw his son under the bus to protect himself and his own Islamist interests." But it looks as if Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a chip off the old block. It's overheated, yes, and the English is faulty, but the most important question here is, Are these charges true?
"Nigerian Muslim Jihadist and Al Qaida Ties Started Long Ago with Alhaji Mutallab,,.The Father As a Leader of Sharia Movement In Nigeria," from Africa Today, January 1 (thanks to Creeping Sharia): Let the world not be fooled by the diguised of Northern Nigerian Religious extremism muslim as represented by their leaders like Yaradua Family, Mutallab Family, Sanusi Family, Bayero Families, Yerima family, Babangida family, Abdulsalam, family, Abacha, Jubril Aminu family, Atiku Family etc. and all of the emires and Ulamas and Northern Nigeria leaders and muslim families AND FOLLOWERS for they all have ties to Muslim Wahabism extremisism in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Dubai, Yemen, Egytp etc and with the world jihadist movement and the world is just now waking up to it and the facts has been there for a long time and now they are exporting terrorism, jihadism, wahabism and Al Qaida to the world. They are all part and parcel of this problem because they planted this it but it is now known and let the world not be fooled. Like all of the muslim Northern Nigerian leaders, DR. Mutallab the father of the terrorist who is now shedding crocodile tears because he is one of the leaders who groom the Wahabism in Nigeria.
Alhaji Dr. Mutallab the father also groomed Sharia law in Katsina State, Alhaji DR. Mutallab Groom Sharia in Kaduna State,Alhaji Dr. Mutallab groomed Sharia in Kano State, Most of the extremism Ulama in Northern Muslim Nigeria are benefactors of Alhaji Mutallab, Dr. Mutallab groomed extreme Muslim businesses in Saudi Arabia, He has extreme business in Dubai and he has extreme religious business in Yemen and he has business and property in Yemen.
Alhaji Mutallab is the owner of the only Islamic Bank in Nigeria, Alhaji Mutallab has ties and interest in almost all the extremist muslim religious groups in Nigeria. He is a top leader of the Sharia movement COUNCIL in Nigeria. This guy is dangerous and he has gotten it hot and thats why he is running from pillar to post because he destroyed Nigeria with his corrupt ways and his muslim jihadist ideas for long time. Dr. Mutallab the father of the terrorist was just covering his ass because he does not want to loose his investment in the Westen World and he does not want his family to be place on the no fly list as he wants to still enjoy his vacation and western women and western wine and drinks in Engalnd, Europe and America while still using extremism and corruption to maintain their corrupt hold in Nigeria by stealing from their people, thats thats why he reported his son to America, because he and most of the Muslim leaders in Nigeria knows more and they are part of the sponsors of world wide jihadism wahabism from Saudi Arabia, Sudan,Dubai, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan etc.... With thanks to JihadWatch
 Rocket launcher? Check. Jihadist writings? Check. But no worries -- the Feds found no ties to terrorism! Keystone Kops Alert from Houston: "Rocket Launcher Found In Apartment: No Charges Filed," from Click2Houston.com, December 31 HOUSTON -- Police went to a southwest Houston apartment to break up a disturbance but ended up finding something else, KPRC Local 2 reported Wednesday. A woman called police on Monday and said a man was forcing his way into her apartment in the 5300 block of Elm Street. When officers went inside, they found something that made them concerned enough to call the bomb squad. They found an AT-4 shoulder-mounted rocket launcher. It can shoot a missile nearly 1,000 feet through buildings and tanks. "It gives infantrymen the advantage with an ultra-light weapon that can stop vehicles, armored vehicles as well as main battle tanks and fortifications," said Oscar Saldivar of Top Brass Military and Tactical on the North Freeway. That type of rocket launcher has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The renter of the apartment didn't want to talk to KPRC Local 2. "This is my house," the woman said. " Get away from here. I don't want to talk to nobody." The woman did tell police that the rocket launcher belonged to Nabilaye I. Yansane, someone whom she allowed to store items at her apartment. Police records show that she didn't want Yansane at her apartment, so she called them. According to court documents, officers also found Jihadist writings that allegedly belonged to Yansane. The woman didn't want to talk to KPRC Local 2 about that, either. "I don't know," she said. "You'll have to ask the police." Yansane was charged with criminal trespassing and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to three days in jail, which he has already served.
No charges related to the rocket launcher or writings were filed. "Other people could have had access to the apartment, so maybe if a rocket launcher was located there, as is stated in the offense report, maybe it belonged to somebody else," attorney Garl Polland said. Prosecutors said there are no state charges for having the unarmed launcher or possessing Jihadist writings, unless they contain some type of threat. The former director of Houston's FBI office said rocket launchers can be dangerous if they're in the wrong hands. No kidding, really? "I don't know any other use for those weapons except in combat," Don Clark said. "I've had them in combat, used them in combat. That's what they are used for." Houston police said they did a thorough investigation and did not find any ties to terrorists or a terrorist network. What a relief! With thanks to JihadWatch
 Obama turns his attention to the jihadist "bus station" that is Yemen. "Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Yemen Terrorists," by Brian Ross, Richard Esposito, Matthew Cole, Luis Martinez, and Kirit Radia for ABC News, December 18: On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen, administration officials told ABC News in a report broadcast on ABC World News with Charles Gibson. One of the targeted sites was a suspected al Qaeda training camp north of the capitol, Sanaa, and the second target was a location where officials said "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned." The Yemen attacks by the U.S. military represent a major escalation of the Obama administration's campaign against al Qaeda. [...] President Obama placed a call after the strikes to "congratulate" the President of Yemen, Ali Abdallah Salih, on his efforts against al Qaeda, according to White House officials. [...] Along with the two U.S. cruise missile attacks, Yemen security forces carried out raids in three separate locations. As many as 120 people were killed in the three raids, according to reports from Yemen, and opposition leaders said many of the dead were innocent civilians. American officials said the missile strikes were intended to disrupt a growing threat from the al Qaeda branch in Yemen, which claims to coordinate terror attacks against neighboring Saudi Arabia....
 Bewildered by what fanatic Muslims do, some conclude that Muslims are brainwashed. Otherwise, how can their totally illogical belief system and barbaric behavior be explained? But the notion of “brainwashing” that is bandied about is the stuff of science fiction and Hollywood movies such as the Manchurian Candidate. The human person arrives in this world with his brains already washed in the sense of being what John Lock called tabula rasa, clean slate—ready for experience to imprint its script on it. John Lock was only partly correct.
The brain also arrives with numerous predispositions already in place. It is a combination of life’s influences and a person’s own decisions that determine which of these dispositions develop and which ones fail. It is through this process that a unique human being is formed. Many animals come with already in-place programs that automatically run much of their lives.
Birds’ migration, mating courtship and thousands of other complex behaviors are instances of this type of specific programming. A catchword for this type of behavior is “instinct.”
As a general rule, the higher the organism the less is its rigid pre-programs and the greater its latitude to exercise choices. Making choices depends on what there is to choose from and to what extent a given choice appeals to the person. And the human newborn enters the arena of life without the means of being other than a passive recipient of “things” already chosen for him. It is like the old joke by Henry Ford who reportedly told his customers that they could have the choice of color for their car as long as it is black. Things are almost as bleak for the new arrival. He didn’t have a say in choosing his parents, his socio-economic condition, his environment of birth and much more. All are already in place and he is to start in life from the context of his birth. The development of a new-born in any family is importantly influenced by many factors, among them how hands-on the parents are; how religious they are, how severely they micromanage him in an attempt to make him not only a good person but also a person better-one than they themselves. Parents tend to live vicariously through their children by programming them, the best they can, so that the children become or achieve much of what they themselves had failed to become or to accomplish. This attitude covers all areas of life such as giving the child the education they didn’t have, helping him with fame and fortune, nurturing him to become a topnotch athlete and so forth. It is a fact that early influences play a cardinal role in shaping the person.
For this reason, for instance, the overwhelming majority of Muslims have born into Muslim families, Catholics into Catholic families, Hindus into Hindu families and so on. It is also a fact that the degree of religiosity ranges from mild to strong, with most people falling somewhere between the two extremes. Interestingly, two siblings raised by the same set of parents under the same influences may end up at the opposite extremes in their religious views and practices.
It is here that the human dynamic of freedom of choice comes into play and steers one to one extreme and the other to the other extreme. Occasional extreme deviations notwithstanding, the great majority of siblings of a given family end up with various degrees of that family’s overall religious and other values.
The same general principle of subscribing to a set of common values exists in all human groupings, in some cases with a broad flexibility and inclusiveness while in others with rigidity and exclusivity. More at Amil Imani
 In an interview published Thursday in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat, a Hamas spokesman said that the jihadist movement is loyal to "Palestinian principles" in its policy of terrorism against the Jews until Israel ceases to exist. Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas claimed earlier this month that Hamas had agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state within temporary borders.
Osama Hamdan, a Hamas spokesman in Lebanon and close associate of powerful Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal, rejected the idea, however. Hamas, Hamdan explained, has never agreed and will never agree to any recognition of Israel's legitimacy as a sovereign state. An agreement to temporary borders contradicts this position, as it would constitute acceptance of Jewish sovereignty over the pre-1967 borders of Israel, he added. The Hamas plan is based on obtaining a Palestinian state by force of arms, Hamdan said, "not by way of agreements, a path that has failed."
In fact, the Hamas spokesman told Al-Hayat that negotiations between his movement and Abbas' Fatah group reached an impasse over acceptance of the Quartet's call for an end to Arab "resistance" operations; i.e., terrorism. The Quartet - the European Union, the United States, the United Nations and Russia - is involved in pushing for negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Hamdan emphasized further that, in fact, it is Hamas that is remaining loyal to "basic Palestinian principles" in fighting against any agreements with Israel. Meanwhile, President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are formulating a new peace plan that calls for a demilitarized, temporary Palestinian state in half of Judea and Samaria.
While the PA has not accepted the plan, Hamdan claimed that PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad supports the idea of a temporary state. Fayyad, claimed Hamdan, has prepared a plan to declare a Palestinian state in 2011. Saeb Erekat, a leading Palestinian Authority spokesman, said that the PA will not unilaterally declare independence. Rather, it will ask the United Nations Security Council to recognize the principle of "two states for two peoples" and affirm the right of the PA to sovereignty in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. INN
 by Jacob Laksin In the annals of poor political judgment, the Obama administration’s decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay-based terrorist detainees in a New York City federal court may yet rank as a blunder without peer in American history. The administration’s announced motive is to prove that civilian courts can be trusted to dispense justice to America’s deadliest enemies.
But in affording al-Qaeda alumnus Mohammed and his jihadist cohorts the constitutional privileges reserved for common criminals, the administration may have put America on trial and potentially endangered the country to score a political point against its predecessor. Of Mohammed’s guilt there can be no doubt. By his own account, he had a hand in 31 terrorist plots, chief among them the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans a short distance from Mohammed’s expected trial site in southern Manhattan. In March 2007, the onetime al-Qaeda number three confessed that he helped Osama bin Laden organize, plan, and execute the 9/11 attacks. “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z,” Mohammed recounted. Other highlights of Mohammed’s terrorist handiwork include planning the 1993 World Trade Center attack; the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, whom Mohammed boasted of personally beheading; the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings; planning attacks in Thailand, the Philippines and Israel; and planning a series of “second wave” terrorist attacks to be carried out in the aftermath of 9/11 on the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building in New York, as well as targets in Washington State.
As Mohammed once put the obvious in his broken English, “For sure, I’m American enemies.” Read more at FPM
 Something has gone terribly wrong in the entire reaction to the Ft. Hood massacres, as evidenced by the media, the administration, the military authorities, and perhaps the public at large. There seems almost a dreamy disconnect from the terrible fate of the slain—as if we are innately impotent to stop such mayhem, or are above the fray and so like Platonic Guardians must remain deep in contemplation about how in theory we can persuade the Hasans to cease and desist—as if our therapeutic stance in the first place did not encourage and embolden such monsters to act. Not a “tragedy” So I am tired of the use of the word “tragedy”—the Greeks’ original invention that grew out of a “goat song”. True, it has come to mean “calamity”, but tragedy’s essence is a central character, flawed rather than inherently evil, at war with, and at the mercy of, larger, immovable forces like fate, destiny, and the gods that overwhelm an Oedipus or Ajax—through a fatal flaw, hubris, or happenstance. The horrific resulting collision can bring education and even entertainment to an audience— Aeschylus’s “learning through pain.” Sorry, Major Hasan just doesn’t rate.
He was not a “tragic” figure, just a tawdry murderous killer, who in premeditated fashion bought guns, planned his killings, and tried to locate his personal failings within some sort jihadist war against the West. Our slain soldiers were the result of an evil act, a one-sided horror story, not a collision of human and divine wills. Enough of ‘Why did he do it?’ I am also tired of the asinine questioning, “Why did he do this?”—as if we are to be perplexed that Hasan the deep philosopher inexplicably committed mayhem. We have reached real Bathos, when talking heads ponder whether trying to contact al Qaeda is really that bad, or whether yelling “Allahu Akbar” as one blows apart human flesh is really an act connected to radical Islam. (By the way, do we really, in the style of Mohammed Atta’s father, need another pathetic interview beamed from the Middle East with the aggrieved relative, who swears on television that his progeny could not have possibly done the crime?
And do we need another Western “thinker” writing that our armed forces attacking suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban in Predator strikes is the equivalent of Hasan shooting uniformed soldiers—as if those in uniform of a democratic state, training for or in war, are the same as those out of uniform committed to theocratic absolutism through the deliberate killing of civilians or the unarmed?
If we kill the non-combatant in Waziristan, it is through error mostly brought on by the deliberate terrorists’ use of “shields”; if Hasan does, it is by intent; those at Fort Dix are enlisted in a cause of freedom and consensual government; Hasan in his hour of carnage enlisted in a 7th-century cause to extinguish it.) Read more,,,,, Source: Pajamas Media
 By JAY AMBROSE
Suppose Maj. Nidal Hassan had called a meeting of agents of the FBI and top officers of Fort Hood, and then said something like this: "Hey, I am a radical Islamic jihadist. I hate America and what it stands for, and especially what it is doing to my fellow Muslims in this so-called war on terror. I am thinking a lot these days about killing people. And in fact, I think killing Americans is justified by the Koran. You get me" Well, they probably would not get him.
They would probably have just left him alone. For the fact is that Hassan did explicitly, unmistakably, repeatedly announce his terrorist attitudes. He had e-mail exchanges with an al Qaida-friendly cleric. He told a meeting of doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that Muslim solders such as himself should be let out of the Army and could become suicide bombers if they were not.. He engaged in diatribes against America during sessions of a public health course at a military university. To him, it is reported, the war on terror was actually a war on Islam. None of this was secret, you understand. It was mostly done in public, some of it seems to have been reported to high-ranking officers, and the FBI found out about the e-mails. The FBI called off its investigation and nothing else was done to stop Hasan until he found a crowded spot at Fort Hood, began firing his semi-automatic handgun, shouted "Allahu Akbar" - "God is great" - and killed 13 people. Heroic police officer Kimberly Munley fired back and he is now in a hospital, recovering and waiting for a military trial. It is pretty clear why no one in authority paid as much attention as the situation demanded. I am not the first to fear that officials were inhibited by the politically correct concern that really, truly investigating this man and his attitudes would be understood as racial or religious profiling, as unwarranted discrimination against Muslims. A probe and appropriate, life-saving action - getting him out of the military, pronto - would have been no such thing, of course. We can all understand that there is no reason to be suspicious of someone just because he or she is a Muslim, but that there is if the person is a self-proclaimed loyalist to the terrorist cause. "If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance," U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is quoted as having said in a TV interview. Of course, as others have noted, no such political correctness extends to Americans who happen to be conservative. Some left-wing commentators fret endlessly over the violence that could come from excessive right-wing rhetoric even as they employ the same kind of rhetoric themselves, and then there's the infamous memo from the Department of Homeland Security.
It warned police that, in times of recession and following the election of a black president, right-wing extremists might find ready recruits for terrorist groups among people worried about gun controls, illegal immigration and the like, and that returning war veterans might also be pulled in. While some right-wing berserkers have in fact committed acts of violence, there was no evidence of the kind of thing the department was talking primarily about. You can see the bigotry evident in this form of thinking if you imagine a memo warning police to be wary in general of American Muslims because they might be drawn to violence.
The need is to be suspicious of people when they trot out solid reasons for that suspicion, and then to do your level best to save others from them, whatever group they might belong to. Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso, Texas, and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado. He can be reached at SpeaktoJay@aol.com. Source: NewsChief
 Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was declared "not a terrorist" before the facts were out - even before officials were sure whether the attacker was alive or dead. Failing to honestly name a terrorist attack despite the evidence is as destructive and dishonest as leaping to call an attack terrorism without the facts to support that. Apparently, the claim was based largely on the fact that Maj. Hasan appears to have been a lone gunman.
However, terrorism is defined not by the number of people involved, but by the motivations and intentions of the attacker. If reports about him are true, Maj. Hasan clearly was a terrorist. He reportedly was upset about the activities of the United States in the Middle East and purportedly had made postings about suicide attacks on jihadist forums.
He told an associate that "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor"; he was videotaped on the morning of the attack wearing traditional white clothing in the manner of someone about to martyr himself.
The same day, he divested himself of belongings and handed out Korans, and he shouted the battle cry of the jihadists, "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire. If these reports are true, this was not just terrorism; it was Islamic jihadist terrorism. It is unclear whether Maj. Hasan acted alone or others were involved in this attack. It would not come as a surprise to learn more people were involved. If so, it will constitute a major counterterrorism failure. Troubling questions are emerging. What diverted authorities from doing a more thorough job of investigating Maj. Hasan six months ago, when he was suspected of jihadist tendencies? Why was he allowed to remain on active duty in the Army, live amongst the troops and prepare for deployment to a combat zone?
Those who claim that such an investigation would be some form of discriminatory profiling are simply wrong.
It is not profiling to investigate someone based on probable cause. The fact that Maj. Hasan is a Muslim would not be reason enough to open an investigation. However, a Muslim in uniform openly discussing violence against the United States and posting his views on suicide attacks to jihadist forums should at least get a second look. Those who want to explain this away as the result of stress, workplace violence or the "stretched force" are willfully blind. Condemned Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad, scheduled for execution this week for his role in killing 10 people and wounding three in October 2002, petitioned for clemency on the basis that he suffers from severe mental illness and Gulf war syndrome.
Surely someone who hunts down and murders strangers is not in his right mind, but the primary motive in both Muhammad's case and Maj. Hasan's was jihadism. The refreshing candor of someone like Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the shooter in the June attack on the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., is rare. Reportedly, he said he was a practicing Muslim angry with the U.S. military for its crimes against Muslims and would have shot more than the two soldiers he killed if more had been available. This incident also was called "not terrorism." The United States is engaged in a global struggle with violent adherents to an extremist Islamic creed. It does not besmirch the Muslim faith - or the vast majority of American Muslims - to admit that fact.
The politically correct tendency to define attacks as something other than terrorism simply to avoid addressing the motives of the attacker is dangerous. Anyone who shouts "Allahu Akbar" and opens fire on a crowd of unarmed people is a terrorist. If Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is not a terrorist, no one is. Source: Washington Times
July 28 By Boualam Ghimrassa
Algiers, Asharq Al-Awsat- The Algerian authorities have been trying to propagate Sufism in Algeria to contain a strong Salafi movement in the country, espoused by most members of the armed Islamist groups. An event was officially launched last Saturday, organized by the Zaouia [religious confraternity] Alaouia, with the participation of 5,000 people from 34 countries.
The event featured lectures and seminars calling for moderation and shunning hardline behavior, and Sufi chants. As part of a fierce war that has been going on with the extremist Islamist groups since the early nineties of last century, the authorities have found a different way of stemming the influence of the Salafi jihadist ideology which is espoused by the armed hardliners.
This new approach consists of propagating the Sufi thought through bodies that have thousands of followers inside and outside Algeria. In this respect, the Mostaganem Governorate, 250 km to the west of Algiers, has been the scene of festivals commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Allaoui religious confraternity, under the slogan: "Let us sow the seeds of hope in the minds of people." The organizers of this week-long event say that it is aimed at "encouraging people to return to traditional Islam, the Islam of tolerance and open-mindedness." Its aim is also to "revive the spiritual and cultural heritage."
The event's launching ceremony was marked by a parade of folklore troupes, with the participation of scout groups from several countries. The Algerian news agency said that 5,000 people would be watching the planned spiritual activities, including 2,200 coming from 34 countries such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Jordan, some European countries, Canada, the United States, Argentina, Japan and Indonesia. According to the event's program, the week-long lectures and seminars will go beyond broaching the spiritual aspects of Islam to include discussions on current world issues such as the environment and communication technology. This will be in parallel with lectures on "revelation," "Sufi spiritualism," and "awareness-raising education." For their part, the organizers of the event say that the Alaouia-Dargaria-Chadhilia religious confraternity dates back to the time of the descendants of Prophet Muhammad, God's prayers and peace be upon him, and is strongly inspired by the ideas of the man who revived it early in the 20th century, namely Cheikh Allaoui. The latter succeeded his master, Cheikh El Bouzidi, in 1909. The Cheikh Allaoui confraternity is known for associating traditions to modernity in Islam, and its current Cheikh is called Adlan Khaled Ben Tounis. He is a writer and lecturer on Sufism and Islam. These celebrations are sponsored by President Abdelaziz Bouteflika personally, and call for brotherhood, tolerance, fighting hatred and spreading the values of tolerance. They are keenly used by the Algerian authorities to confront the activity of the propagators of Salafia jihadi ideology, which is infiltrating society through mosques, books and compact discs distributed to the young in various places, including schools.
The Salafia jihadist ideology is also propagated through films inciting combat, which are shown on the Internet. Investigations indicate that a large number of armed groups' members have espoused this ideology as a result of the propagation of a discourse calling for war against the state. Moreover, the Algerian gendarmerie announced over the weekend that border gendarmes had seized four tons of drugs, two weapons, ammunition, and a mobile telephone in the small town of Oued Ritma, Bechar Governorate, 965 km to the south west of the Algerian capital Algiers. In this respect, an Algerian source stated that border guards in Oued Ritma ambushed and opened fire on a convoy composed of four vehicles belonging to drug smugglers; the gendarmes arrested four and seized 4,060 kg of treated drugs and an automatic weapon. Source: Asharq Alawsat
NY : Appel au djihad et à la charia près de Ground Zero
dimanche 17 mai 2009 Le 15 avril 2009 à New York : dawa (propagande) dans la rue. L’arrogance des barbus médiévaux au discours subversif est sans limites : (English) Video: http://blip.tv/play/AYGChSmH6Eo (English) Islam in Action : Des musulmans américains affiliés au site islamiste haineux (English) RevolutionMuslim.com basé à NY, font de la propagande dans la rue. Leur chef Yousef al-Khattab soutient ouvertement la charia et l’appel au djihad. Pour couronner le tout, ils sont installés à proximité de Ground Zero. Ça ressemble à Broadway près de l’Hôtel de ville.
Cet hurluberlu parle des musulmans qui se font tuer dans la vallée de Swat au Pakistan... Pourtant, ces musulmans sont victimes d’atrocités commises par d’autres musulmans, des talibans enrobés de piété. Les musulmans fuient la vallée en grand nombre, et une bonne partie d’entre eux n’est pas intéressée à vivre sous le fascisme de la charia. Source: http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/spip.php?article1113
 Mladen Andrijasevic As an American citizen I did everything I could to stop this from happening. I voted for McCain. But now in Israel as I watch as Obama appeases the Iranians I wonder if we in Israel will be able to survive.
Obama apparently believes that appeasing totalitarian regimes works. His Nowruz address will become the classic example of such an attempt. But the history of appeasement is not very encouraging. It has not worked with the Nazis, it has not worked with Arafat's regime, and least of all has it worked with the jihadists. For those in Europe who have for years believed that their appeasement has brought them less terror and cheap oil can only look around and see what Europe has become with the recent protests in Luton and Malmo.Is it not better to have some dialogue with Iran? Are there no benefits at all? John Bolton thinks not. The US would survive the collapse of its appeasement policy toward Iran, even the scenario of an EMP attack. Israel would not. Israel should not be made to play the role of a victim of a failed appeasement policy, a learning curve unfortunate error in judgment of a rookie American president. For the lesson learned would have been that an Iranian-Israeli nuclear war would be a disaster not only for Israel but for the US as well. So why make the error in the first place? As an Israeli citizen I therefore voted for those who have already experienced the futility of appeasing the jihadists in more than 15 failed peace process attempts in the last 15 years and who will in protecting Israel's survival be protecting American interests as well. Source: American Thinker
 By Erick Stakelbeck Terms like "radical Islamist" and "jihadist" have dominated headlines and speeches since 9/11, with the Bush administration using them frequently to describe America's enemies. But that language may be about to change. Although Al-Qaeda and other terrorists identify themselves as jihadists -- holy warriors--some feel we make a mistake by calling them what they call themselves. "It makes sense why they would want to be called it. It makes no sense why we would want to call them that," said Peter Singer, a national security expert with the Brookings Institution in Washington. Singer co-wrote a recent New York Times op-ed that argues against the use of words like "jihadist" to describe Islamic terrorists. "This feeds into their idea that this is a religious war, and it's not.," he said. "They want it to be a war of religions, but we have said very clearly that this is not a war on Islam, it's not Christianity vs. Islam in some way. It's about radicals, it's about extremists who are using violence." U.S. government agencies agree with Singer's view. More ...Source: CBN News
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Government officials should depict terrorists "as the dangerous cult leaders they are" and avoid words that aggrandize them, like "jihadists," "Islamic terrorists," "Islamists" and "holy warriors," the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday. "Words matter," the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term "moderate Muslims," a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith. Read more ...Source: CNN H/T: Jihad Watch
 By Patrick Poole In yet another startling case of incompetence, the State Department is sponsoring international delegations for an Islamic group being investigated for terrorist support.State Department diplomats are taking full advantage of their new rules prohibiting the use of "jihad," "jihadist," and "mujahedeen" to describe Islamic extremists and terrorists, which they apparently have taken to mean that there are no jihadists in light of the exchange programs they have recently sponsored for the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) — an organization currently under active federal grand jury investigation for terrorist support activities. The IIIT exchange programs have been conducted under the State Department's International Visitor's Program. According to reports published on IIIT's website, the State Department sponsored a March 7 visit to IIIT by a group of Chinese scholars and, more recently, an April 17-18 session with a large delegation of Islamic scholars from the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia. The State Department has sponsored these IIIT activities at the very same time that a federal grand jury continues to look into IIIT's multiple ties to terrorism as part of the Department of Justice's ongoing Operation Green Quest investigation. A March 24 article in the New York Sun, "A Court Sheds New Light on Terror Probe," identifies IIIT as the "group at the center of the probe." Read more ...Source: Pajamas MediaState Department
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
By Jeffrey Imm Last week, the Associated Press reported that the State Department approved National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) guidelines for terminology in defining the enemy created by NCTC's Extremist Messaging Branch, based on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims". In these new guidelines, the term "jihadist" (among others) was not to be used in defining the enemy or its actions. But this week, it is apparent that these new guidelines are not being reflected in the State Department annual terrorist report and in comments from President Bush. Read more ...Source: Counterterrorism Blog
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
