 Click to enlargeOsama bin Laden, you have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided. Do you understand these rights?
Well, we don't.
During a visit to Afghanistan, Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican, witnessed captured foreign fighters being read Miranda warnings. The Justice Department says this is done "to preserve the quality of evidence obtained." The practice began during the Bush years when congressional challenges to the administration's detainee policy required building criminal cases using "clean" evidence that could stand up in U.S. courts.
This looks like a creeping return to 1990s counterterrorism practices that failed to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission found that policies adopted in the Clinton years - which limited intelligence sharing lest criminal cases be compromised - led to tragedy. There was an overabundance of caution to avoid evidence being tainted, and it was an open secret in the FBI that sharing too much was a career ender. Source: The Washington Times
By Dr. Walid Phares As the U.S. administration and its allies are devising a new strategy for the next steps in Afghanistan, the jihadists have already begun their next move — but this time it’s inside Pakistan. As I’ve written over the past few months, we need to look at Afghanistan, Pakistan and India as one regional battlefield where the “other side” is coordinating strategically, acting methodically and for sure beating the international coalition in speed. If Washington and its allies fail to see the big picture in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the rapidly deteriorating situation will soon exceed the northwestern provinces of Pakistan to spill over to both Afghanistan and India, if not beyond. That’s how I suggest “reading” the recent worrisome leaps achieved by the Taliban from the SWAT valley into the neighboring district of Buner. So what’s the story and why should we consider it as a crossing of red lines? Read more ...Source: FrontPage Magazine
By Joel Mowbray A quickly growing jihadist group that used Facebook to spread its radical message has been shut down by the popular Web networking site after FOXNews.com alerted the company to the group's activities. Facebook blocked the group, Fursan Ghazawat Alnusra - Arabic for "Knights in Support of the Invasion" - Thursday evening after the group swelled to about 120 members in just over one week. The group had been exhorting its members to wage "Jihad to aid the religion of Allah and his Prophet." FOXNews.com, working closely with a former radical Muslim now dedicated to exposing cyberterror activity, was able to gain access to the group and its content. Read more ...Source: Fox News
 By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. Last week, Barack Obama's campaign was burned yet again for its dalliance with Islamists - those who embrace Islam's repressive theo-political-legal code known as Shariah and who are working for its triumph in the West in general and the United States in particular. The episode is but the latest indication that the Democratic candidate hopes to win the White House by relying, in part, on the Jihadist vote. NBC reported Thursday that the Obama campaign's latest radical "Muslim outreach coordinator," Mouha Husaini, met last month in one of Washington's Northern Virginia suburbs - the heart of what has been dubbed the "Wahhabi Corridor" - with her predecessor, Mazen Asbahi (who had to resign this summer due to his own associations with Shariah). Even more problematic was the presence at the Springfield event of two prominent Muslim Brotherhood operatives: Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society (MAS) and Nihad Awad of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR). As I pointed out in a debate on Tuesday, with a man associated with both organizations and arguably the Bush Administration's senior Muslim official, Suhail Khan, the Brotherhood is an instrument the Islamists have been using to foster a Fifth Column in America. Its stated purpose in this country is to "destroy Western civilization from within." According to NBC, even other attendees expressed concern that the Obama campaign was reaching out to such "politically radioactive" individuals as Bray and Awad. Read more ...Source: The Washington Times
 Shouldn’t an avowed enemy of a Western nation and its allies be treated as an enemy of that nation? Not according to Lawrence Greenspon, the tax-funded counsel for the defense of terrorist suspect Mohammad Momin Khawaja. Wherever you sit as you read this, if you agree that we need to fight terrorism and clamp down on violent Islamist extremism, you’ll be floored by what’s going on here in Canada. Greenspon argues that his client, an admitted Jihadist who made detonators for terrorists in the narrowly averted second London bomb plot, who was in possession of explosives, who financed terrorist activity, and who received terrorist training,is not really a terrorist. He’s merely a young Islamist who sought to be an insurgent in Afghanistan, and everyone should just leave the poor guy alone. Khawaja’s former fiancée explains to a gullible media that “Jihad and terrorism are different things.” Feel better now? Here’s the rationale. Although the doctrinal definition of Jihad is this: "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, o9.0, JIHAD, pg. 599) ... there are, we’re assured, two types of Jihad. First is the personal, non-violent Jihad akin to what Christians refer to as their “walk of life,” i.e. leading a righteous and peaceful life. It’s being confused in this case, according to Canadian journalists, with the second type of Jihad involving insurgency, honor killing and terrorism. Read more ...Source: Family Security MattersLawrence Greenspon
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
 By Imran Asghar
RAWALPINDI: Would-be suicide bombers could be using explosives “underwear briefs” rather than explosives jackets to evade “conservative” body searches, sources said on Wednesday.
Sihala Police College forensic lab sources told Daily Times that the study of recent suicide attacks showed that suicide bombers used “explosives-laden” under-garments, briefs in particular, to carry out the attacks.
The sources said that the explosives could weigh between five kilogrammes to seven kilogrammes, made deadly by adding glass splinters, metal ball bearings and bullets. The law enforcers normally search upper body parts sparing the “privates”, the sources said, hence assailants are increasingly using the lower body parts to dodge the searches. The sources said that forensic experts were trying to devise methods to pre-empt suicide bombing. The experts have achieved successes in “Post Bombing Investigation,” the sources said, adding that resources are sharpening “Pre Bombing Investigation” techniques. Source: Daily Times
 By M. Zuhdi Jasser As a Muslim, I am continually mystified by our nation’s inability to foster an environment conducive to a real “contest of ideas” between Muslims. This ‘”intra-Muslim contest” is arguably the linchpin of an effective counterterrorism strategy and possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. The infamous January 2008 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum, “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations of American Muslims” only stifles progress in this debate. It absurdly admonishes government employees and thought leaders to avoid terms like Jihadist, Islamist, and Salafist. More recently, buried in media coverage last week over the debate concerning the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act of 2009 (H.R. 5959) was discussion over the Hoekstra Amendment (A004) which simply “barred the use of funds to prohibit or discourage the use of the phrases ‘jihadist’, ‘jihad’ ‘Islamo-fascism’, ‘Caliphate’ ,‘Islamist’ or “Islamic terrorist” within the Intelligence Community or the Federal Government.” “Mainstream media” who did mention the amendment spun it in ways which only catered to the Islamist mindset, stating that these terms are felt by so-called experts to cause “religious offense” and “are frequently applied incorrectly.” So who is to determine their ‘correctness’ – a small group of Islamist advisors? Where does that leave the war of ideas? Read more ...Source: Family Security MattersDr. M. Zuhdi Jasser
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
By Jeffrey Imm Another strategic error in the failure to address the ideological basis of Jihad in Islamic supremacism is that the lack of such a strategic debate allows a series of false and misleading reports about Jihadists allegedly "renouncing" jihad or abandoning Islamism. The point of these media reports are to suggest that either (a) there is no Jihadist threat, or (b) what threat does exist is diminishing as "extremists" realize the folly of violence. Such reports have one clear purpose: quash public debate on the real ideological basis behind Jihad, with the secondary purpose of questioning Jihad as a "real threat." Read more ...Source: Family Security Matters
 After years of using the word "jihadist" to describe terrorists who carry out attacks against civilians and the U.S. military, the Bush administration has finally realized that doing so actually pays those groups a compliment in the eyes of some Muslims. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has relied on terms like "jihadist" and "Islamic extremists." But jihad has very positive connotations in the Islamic world. It is akin to religious duty: when someone wants to better themselves, they embark on a jihad. Whether it's to quit smoking, pray more, and in some cases, fight off anyone preventing them from practicing their religion. " Just like you wouldn't call Josef Stalin a hero of the revolution, you don't want to call Osama bin Laden a jihadist. He loves it," says Duncan MacInnes, a spokesman for the State Department's Counterterrorism Communication Center. The State Department has issued a memo to all its employees cautioning them against using Islamic references whenever condemning terrorist attacks. The Department of Homeland Security has also advised its employees to avoid those same mistakes. Mohammed Magid is imam of ADAMS Center, a collective of seven mosques in Virginia. He says the changes are late but welcome. When officials criticize the word jihad, they offend Muslims, Magid says. "You isolate so many people by using that. We need to discredit terrorism." Read more ...Source: NPRDuncan MacInnes
State Department
Latest recipients of The Dhimmi Award
Mohammed Magid
Latest recipient of the Distinguished Islamofascist Award
By Robert Spencer Recently Pamela Geller, Charles Johnson and Michelle Malkin pointed out that a new Dunkin' Donuts ad featured Rachael Ray wearing a Palestinian kaffiyeh. What's wrong with that? People in the Middle East, including Arabic-speaking Christians, wore it long before the establishment of the State of Israel and the invention of the "Palestinian" nationality. But there is no doubt that it has become a symbol of the Palestinian jihad. Charles posts a piece explaining the kaffiyeh as a "symbol of resistance and solidarity with the Palestinian struggle." Michelle Malkin accordingly asks, "It’s just a scarf, the clueless keffiyeh-wearers scoff. Would they say the same of fashion designers who marketed modified Klan-style hoods in Burberry plaid as the next big thing?" Read more ...Source: MSNBC H/T: Jihad Watch
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
 By Robert Spencer
A reliable source has informed me that Condoleeza Rice has approved a new lexicon for State Department usage, absolutely forbidding the use of the terms "jihad" and "jihadist" by any State Department official.
The argument, of course, is the old Streusand/Guirard claim that by using the word jihad, we're validating the jihadist claim to be waging jihad. Of course, it's ridiculous to think that the U.S. State Department carries any validating authority within the Islamic world to determine what is Islam and what isn't. This would be the first time that unbelievers have set the meaning of Islamic theology for Muslims.
Also, the claim is that by using the word "jihad," we are insulting the peaceful Muslims who are waging the daily jihad of the struggle against sin, the struggle against the dirty dishes, etc. And that's great, if that's what any Muslim actually believes is the sum and substance of jihad, but it is an understanding of jihad that is at odds with the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Will Muslims be insulted by a reference to other Muslims using the traditional primary meaning of jihad? Answer: probably. But that doesn't negate the traditional status of that meaning, or the influence of that traditional view in the Islamic world.
I will publish more information on this when possible. Source: Jihad WatchCondoleezza Rice
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
