Islamic terrorist David Headley revelations will further dent FBI’s credibility in India

Headley revelations will further dent FBI’s credibility in India
October 18, 2010

The FBI moved against Headley seriously only after coming to know of his role in the planned attack in Copenhagen. It did not show the same seriousness in respect of his role in the Mumbai attack, writes B Raman

The latest round of disclosures relating to David Coleman Headley, which have embarrassed the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were brought out in two detailed investigative reports by Sebastian Rotella of ProPublica, a website which specialises in investigative reporting.

These two reports — titled FBI Was Warned Years in Advance of Mumbai Attacker’s Terror Ties and Feds Confirm Mumbai Plotter Trained With Terrorists While Working for DEA — which were published on the web site, have also been used by the Washington Post, thereby adding to their credibility.

A large part of these reports are based on a study of the court documents filed by the prosecution against Headley. The remaining is fresh information gathered from Headley’s ex-wives and serving and retired officials of the FBI and other agencies.

The salient points in the investigative reports are:

In three interviews with federal agents, Headley’s wife said he was an active member of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba, had trained extensively in its Pakistani camps, and had shopped for night vision goggles and other equipment, according to officials. The wife also told agents that Headley had bragged about working as a paid US informant while he trained with the terrorists in Pakistan.

The FBI “looked into” the tip, but they declined to say what, if any, action was taken. Headley was jailed briefly in New York on charges of domestic assault, but was not prosecuted. He wasn’t captured until 11 months after the Mumbai attack, when British intelligence alerted American authorities that he was in contact with Al Qaeda operatives in Europe.

The New York Times reported that another of Headley’s wives — he apparently was married to three women at the same time — had also warned US officials about his terror links. In December 2007, the Moroccan woman met with officials at the US embassy in Pakistan and told them about Headley’s friendship with Lashkar members, his hatred of India and her trips with him to the Taj Mahal Hotel, a prime target of the Mumbai attacks. On Saturday, federal officials said the women’s tips lacked specificity. “US authorities took seriously what Headley’s former wives said. Their information was of a general nature and did not suggest any particular terrorist plot,” a senior administration official said.

Headley’s relationship with the US government is especially delicate because the investigation has shown that he also had contact with suspected Pakistani intelligence officials and a Pakistani militant named Ilyas Kashmiri, who has emerged as a top operational leader of the Al Qaeda.

The following conclusions emerge from the two reports:

Headley was initially an informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency. He was being used to collect intelligence about the activities of the LeT in Pakistan. For this purpose, he used to visit Pakistan.

In August 2005, his US-based ex-wife had alerted an FBI task force about Headley’s links with the LeT and helping them procure equipment like night-vision glasses. She had also told the FBI about his e-mail and other contacts in Pakistan. She had also complained that he was ill-treating her. The FBI questioned him about her allegations of ill-treatment, but did not seriously follow up her tips about his ties with the Lashkar.

The FBI probably did not question him about his links with the Lashkar because it was already aware of the details since he was a DEA informant. In December 2007, his Moroccan ex-wife complained to the US embassy in Islamabad about his links with the LeT. It is not clear what action the embassy took on her complaint

In 2008, the FBI came to know about the Lashkar’s plans to launch a sea-borne terrorist strike on certain targets on the Mumbai sea-front, including the Taj Mahal Hotel. It promptly passed on the information to the Indian agencies. The FBI could not have been expected to tell the Indian agencies that the information came from Headley. This was a specific piece of information complete in many respects except the date of the planned attacks. No intelligence or investigation agency would reveal the name of a source giving such specific information.

Headley had visited India five times to collect operational intelligence and to help the Lashkar select targets and the landing point for the boat. Before starting his visits to India, Headley had taken a new passport under the name of David Coleman Headley in place of his previous passport under the name Daood Gilani in order to conceal his Pakistani origin from the Indian consular and immigration authorities. The FBI would have been expected to share this information with the Indian authorities, but it did not do so. Had the FBI done so, the Indian authorities might have been able to establish the details of his Indian network, arrest and question him and pre-empt the attack.

The FBI did not alert the Indian authorities, even when Headley visited India again after the 26/11 terrorist strikes.

The FBI seems to have arrested Headley only after it intercepted messages about his being used by the LeT and Ilyas Kashmiri of the 313 Brigade to plan a terrorist strike in Copenhagen against a newspaper which had published cartoons of Prophet Mohammed in 2005. The arrest was made actually after British intelligence came to know of his contacts with some associates of Kashmiri in Europe, while planning the Copenhagen attack. The FBI moved against him seriously only after coming to know of his role in the planned attack in Copenhagen. It did not show the same seriousness in respect of his role in the Mumbai attack.

How helpful was the FBI in helping the Indian agencies in this case? It would be difficult to answer this question unless one knows the following details:

When did the FBI first take the initiative in informing the Indian agencies about Headley’s arrest and the information obtained from him?
Why did the FBI delay its response to the Indian request for permission to interrogate him?

Why did the FBI insist on Headley being interrogated in US custody in the presence of FBI officers and did not allow Indian officers to question him independently?

During the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington, DC, in November 2009 for talks with President Barack Obama, the two countries had reached what was described as a joint counter-terrorism initiative to promote counter-terrorism co-operation between the agencies of the two countries. The FBI’s suspicious conduct, in keeping the Indian agencies in the dark about all relevant aspects of Headley’s involvement with the LeT, adds to the suspicions that the JCTI was an eye-wash sold to India to cover up the FBI’s sins of commission and omission and to conceal from the American families whose members were killed in the 26/11 attack, the extent of the FBI’s knowledge which could have been used to prevent the strikes.

While this issue may not have any major impact on President Obama’s visit to India next month, it will definitely add to the traditional distrust nursed by the Indian agencies about their American counterparts.

B Raman

US plan to bomb 150 terror camps in Pakistan

US ready to bomb 150 Pak terror camps?
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN, Sep 28, 2010

WASHINGTON: The United States has a secret “retribution” plan to bomb more than 150 terror camps in Pakistan in the event of another major terrorist attack originating from that country.

This startling disclosure about Washington’s “all bets off” policy towards an ostensibly dubious ally in the war on terror is contained in Bob Woodward’s opus ” Obama’s War,” which details an evolving US approach in the region.

The plan pre-dates the Obama presidency, going back to the Bush White House, but elements of policy, aimed at wiping out terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan, is evident in the current administration’s ruthless bombing by unmanned drones of terrorist targets inside Pakistan, which far surpasses the Bush approach in terms of frequency and intensity.

The US threat also places in context secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s dire warning to Islamabad earlier this year that there would be severe consequences for Pakistan if another 9/11-type attack were traced back to that country.

According to Woodward, then President Bush did not see much difference between 9/11 and 26/11; a foundation of his presidency was zero tolerance for terrorists and their enablers and he was extremely proud of the hard-line doctrine.

Although plans for punitive strikes against Pakistan was initially linked to another 9/11 type attack on US, it evidently evolved after the 26/11 Mumbai carnage, when Bush asked his aides for contingency plans for dealing with Pakistan.

He called his national security team into the Oval Office and told his advisers, “You guys get planning and do what you have to do to prevent a war between Pakistan and India.” The order suggests that the US would undertake the bombing to prevent India from retaliating against Pakistan leading possibly to an all-out war.

“This is like 9/11, he (Bush) said,” Woodward writes. “The United States military did not have “war” plans for an invasion of Pakistan. Instead, it had and continues to have one of the most sensitive and secret of all military contingencies, what military officials call a “retribution” plan in the event of another 9/11-like attack.”

In fact, such is the anger within the US administration about Pakistan’s double-faced approach that the plan calls for a no-holds-barred approach. “Some locations might be outdated, but there would be no concern, under the plan, for who might be living there now. The retribution plan called for a brutal punishing attack on at least 150 or more associated camps,” Woodward writes.

So how did Pakistan escape the wrath of US’ “zero tolerance” policy? According to Woodward, CIA intelligence with 48 hours of the attack showed no direct ISI link. Bush himself called Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to tell him that the new Pakistani government was not involved in the attack.

But the CIA later received reliable intelligence that the ISI was directly involved in the training for Mumbai, Woodward writes in a footnote. ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha flew to Washington later to admit that at least two retired Pakistani army officers who planned the Mumbai attack had ISI links “but this had not been an authorized ISI operation. It was rogue.”

“There may have been people associated with my organization who were associated with this,” Pasha argued. “That’s different from authority, direction and control.” This argument, long attributed to Islamabad’s practice of “plausible deniability” which practicing a policy of state terrorism, saved Pakistan’s bacon.

Woodward’s 417-page book provides a fly-on-the-wall view of the Obama Presidency’s evolving AfPak policy that is more Pak than Af. In an ABC interview, Woodward described how Obama was told of deep problems in the US relationship with Pakistan at his very first intelligence briefing, likening it to a “cold shower” for the President coming just two days after his 2008 presidential victory.

“Imagine the high of being elected on that Tuesday and they come in two days later and say, by the way, here are the secrets, and one of the secrets is Pakistan,” Woodward writes. “We’re attacking with a top-secret, covert operation, the safe havens in Pakistan, but Pakistan is living a lie. And this is a theme throughout the whole Obama presidency: ‘How do you get control of Pakistan?’ ”

Soon after, in an Oval Office meeting with Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari, Obama bluntly tells him his country has to get over its obsession with India. “We do not begrudge you being concerned about India,” Obama tells Zardari, but “we do not want to be part of arming you (Pakistan) against India, so let me be very clear about that.”

Zardari’s response: “We are trying to change our world view but it’s not going to happen overnight.”

From all accounts, Zardari’s attempt to change Pakistan’s chronic pathology towards India has been thwarted by the country’s military, described as a rapacious, over-fed force which fattens itself on an anti-India posture at the expense of the people who pay for it. From exchanges detailed in Woodward’s book, Washington is all too aware of it, but has failed to effect a change in Pakistan’s behaviour despite billions of dollars in aid and a vague threat of retribution.

Majority of Americans have a negative opinion of Islam

U.S. News
Poll: 52 percent in U.S. negative on Islam
Published: Sept. 20, 2010

NEW YORK, Sept. 20 (UPI) — More than half of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Islam and say they consider it to be a religion that encourages violence, a poll indicates.

Americans hold strongly positive views on Christianity but are less approving in their assessment of other religions, the Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

In a survey of 1,024 adults, the poll found 83 percent generally have a favorable view of Christianity while 47 percent feel the same way about Judaism and 43 percent about Buddhism.

But 52 percent of respondents said they hold an unfavorable view of Islam, the poll found.

Asked about religion encouraging violence, 45 percent said they believe Islam encourages violence and 25 percent described it as a peaceful religion.

While 91 per cent of Americans say they have a good basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Christianity, less than half are knowledgeable about five other religions: Judaism 43 percent, Islam 34 percent, Buddhism 31 percent, Hinduism 22 percent and Sikhism 8 percent, the poll indicates.

The poll was conducted online on Sept 14 and 15 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

LeT Islamic terrorists using Sri Lanka as base to attack India

US terror alert: Lashkar using Lanka as base to attack India
Pranab Dhal Samanta
Sep 19 2010

Days after it was revealed that German Bakery blast-accused Mirza Himayat Baig allegedly met his Lashkar-e-Toiba contact in Sri Lanka to avoid detection, US agencies have passed on intelligence inputs to India that the LeT already has some 200 cadres present in the island nation who plan to use the country as a “staging ground” to enter India.

It’s learnt that Washington has also informed Colombo about this after Lankan authorities denied that LeT had training facilities there. As per New Delhi’s assessment, the threat could be aggravated if remnants of the LTTE cadre are engaged in logistics for LeT.

Contrary to initial claims that Baig was trained in Sri Lanka, what has been confirmed is that he traveled there in 2008 where he met a contact from LeT. Sources said investigations are on to find out whether he undertook more visits and if LeT operatives are using Sri Lanka as a rendezvous to avoid detection.

According to US inputs, LeT’s 200 cadres in Sri Lanka were possibly “planners and facilitators” currently engaged in laying a network before more operatives can be sent for specific attacks in India. In fact, these inputs suggest that LeT operatives were being specifically trained to be sent to Sri Lanka.

Sources said efforts are on to “sensitise” Lankan authorities at the highest levels to take the threat seriously and help pre-empt any major plans. With India extra cautious along its western coast after 26/11, using Sri Lanka as a staging ground is seen as a “fresh innovation” which can translate into a specific threat with local help.

The US assessment, in fact, suggests that LeT is looking to strengthen its presence in Nepal and Maldives, too. While Nepal has been used to carry out attacks in India, Maldives provides new options if operatives have to reach peninsular India where many “high-value targets” are.

While cautioning against being alarmist about this development, high-level sources said the concern is serious because terror outfits like the LeT seem to have only increased their resources and there is no check on their spread and growth despite the international pressure on Pakistan.

Obama says US not at war with peace loving Islam

US not at war with peace loving Islam, says Obama
September 11, 2010

On the eve of the ninth anniversary of the 9/11, President Barack Obama said that America is not at war with Islam, but against “a handful of tiny minority” who have distorted the preachings of this great religion.

Asserting that the majority of the Muslims across the world are peace loving and do not support extremist ideologies, Obama said the US is at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted Islam.

“We were at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted Islam, had stolen its banner to carry out their outrageous acts,” Obama said in response to a question at his White House press conference on Friday.

“We are not at war against Islam. We are at war against terrorist organisations that have distorted Islam or falsely used the banner of Islam to engage in their destructive acts. He underlined the need for allies to successfully reduce the terror threat.

“We’ve got to be clear about that, because…if we’re going to successfully reduce the terror threat, then we need all the allies we can get,” Obama said. “The folks who are most interested in a war between the United States or the West and Islam are al-Qaeda. That’s what they’ve been banking on,” he said.

He said the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world are peace-loving and interested in the same things that “you and I are interested in. How do I make sure I can get a good job, how can I make sure that my kids get a decent education, how can I make sure I’m safe, how can I improve my lot in life.”

“And so they have rejected this violent ideology for the most part, overwhelmingly,” Obama said. He said it was necessary to be clear about “who the enemy is here”.

“So from a national security interest, we want to be clear about who the enemy is here. It’s a handful, a tiny minority of people who are engaging in horrific acts and have killed Muslims more than anybody else,” Obama said.

In fact, Obama praised his predecessor, George W Bush, in this regard. “One of the things that I most admired about President Bush was, after 9/11, him being crystal clear about the fact that we were not at war with Islam,” he said.

“We were at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted Islam, had stolen its banner to carry out their outrageous acts,” Obama noted.

Obama said the country stands “together against those who would try to do us harm”.

“I was so proud of the country rallying around that idea, that notion: that we are not going to be divided by religion; we’re not going to be divided by ethnicity; we are all Americans; we stand together against those who would try to do us harm,” the President told the American people.

“That’s what the US has done over the last nine years. We should take great pride in that,” he said. He said it is absolutely important for the American people to know who our enemies are.

“Our enemies are al-Qaeda and their allies, who are trying to kill us but have killed more Muslims than just about anybody on Earth,” Obama said. The US President said it is important for the Americans to remember the large Muslim population in the country.

“They’re going to school with our kids. They’re our neighbours. They’re our friends. They’re our co-workers,” he said, adding “I’ve got Muslims who are fighting in Afghanistan, in the uniform of the United States armed services”.

“And we’ve got to make sure that we are crystal clear for our sakes and their sakes: They are Americans. And we honour their service,” Obama said, adding “Part of honouring their service is making sure that they understand that we don’t differentiate between ‘them’ and ‘us'”.

Lalit K Jha in Washington
© Copyright 2010 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent.

Historic 9/11 Rally against Islamic Terrorism draws tens of thousands

Historic 9/11 Rally against Islamic Terrorism draws tens of thousands

Photos, videos

via atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com

How Pakistan protected Taliban

Pakiban: How Pakistan protected Taliban against US post 9/11

Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN, Sep 14, 2010
WASHINGTON: As “Taliban’s primary sponsor” Pakistan protected and promoted its client every inch of the way in the immediate days after 9/11 resulting in undermining the US war on terror, newly declassified documents detailing exchanges at that time between Washington and Islamabad reveal.

As current US strategy increasingly pursues policies to reconcile or “flip” the Taliban, the document collection released on Monday show Washington’s refusal to negotiate with Taliban leadership directly after 9/11 and Pakistan’s insistence of the relevance of group it nurtured in order to push for strategic depth in Afghanistan and thwart Indian influence.

According to the documents, on September 13, 2001, US Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin “bluntly” told Pakistani President Musharraf that there was “absolutely no inclination in Washington to enter into a dialogue with the Taliban. The time for dialog was finished as of September 11.”

Pakistan, as the Taliban’s primary sponsor, disagreed. Pakistani Intelligence ( ISI) Chief Mahmoud told the ambassador “not to act in anger. Real victory will come in negotiations… If the Taliban are eliminated… Afghanistan will revert to warlordism.” Pakistan’s primary concern was that the Northern Alliance, backed by other foreign powers in the region, including India, would return to power in Kabul.

Pakistan also backed off from hunting down Osama bin Laden, with Mahmoud, who was present in Washington on 9/11 and later turned out to be a frontman for Taliban, telling the Americans it was “better for the Afghans to do it. We could avoid the fallout.”

As a result, Pakistani tribal areas where Osama bin Laden found refuge, which were momentarily open to the Pakistani Army when “the tribes were overawed by US firepower” after 9/11, quickly again became “no-go areas” where the Taliban could reorganize and plan their resurgence in Afghanistan, a commentary by the national Security Archive that accompanied the documents, notes.

Consequently, according to US Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald E. Neumann, the 2005 Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan was a direct product of the “four years that the Taliban has had to reorganize and think about their approach in a sanctuary beyond the reach of either government.” This had exponentially increased casualties as the Taliban adopted insurgency tactics successful in Iraq, including suicide bombings and the use of IEDs.

Neumann, the documents reveal, warned Washington that if the sanctuary in Pakistan were not addressed it would “lead to the re-emergence of the same strategic threat to the United States that prompted our OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] intervention” in 2001.

The policy to protect Taliban reached the highest levels of the Pakistani establishment, the documents show. In exchanges between September 14 and November 16, 2001 – Pakistan’s military strongman Pervez Musharraf asks the US to clarify if its counterterrorism mission is against the Taliban or just al-Qaida and repeatedly asks the US not to let the Northern Alliance take over Kabul.

The declassified documents also show that the state department, then headed by Colin Powell, batted hard for Pakistan despite suspicions in the US establishment about its bonafides in the war on terror. In a memo to President Bush, Powell notes that Musharraf’s decision to ally with the US comes “at considerable political risk,” as he has “abandoned the Taliban, frozen terrorist assets [and] quelled anti-Western protests without unwarranted force, ” all dubious assumptions.

Regarding Afghanistan, the secretary appears to push Islamabad’s agenda, telling the president that Pakistan will want to protect its interests and maintain influence in Kabul. “Musharraf is pressing for a future government supportive of its interests and is concerned that the Northern Alliance will occupy Kabul,” Powell notes.

The disclosures came even as the White House began yet another review on Monday of its Af-Pak policy which has so far been based on several questionable premises, including undue sensitivity to Pakistan’s extra-territorial ambitions and concerns mainly relating to its existential insecurity vis-à-vis India.

In a read-out of the meeting presided over by President Obama, the White House indicated that reports of overtures to the Taliban may be overstated. Additional forces deployed in Afghanistan are now at the highest operational tempo to date, and are focused on challenging long-established Taliban strongholds, targeting Taliban leadership, training Afghan Security Forces, and supporting Afghan-led reintegration and local policing initiatives, the White House cited General Petraeus as emphasizing.

There is no radical Islam, no hijacked Islam, no corrupted Islam, no extreme Islam and no moderate Islam: Islam is Islam is Islam

Islam is Islam is Islam
by Victor Sharpe

To quote the old proverb: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck.” So it is with Islam. There is no radical Islam, no hijacked Islam, no corrupted Islam, no extreme Islam and no moderate Islam: There is simply Islam.

Listening to White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, answering questions from reporters about the planned 15 story high mosque mere yards from ground zero was revealing. He said: “I think you’ve heard this administration and the last administration talk about the fact that we are not at war with a religion but with an idea that has corrupted a religion.”

There again is that oft repeated phrase that the religion of Islam has been corrupted. But does Gibbs and his boss, Barack Hussein Obama, truly believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and not without a major pillar called jihad with its dire implications for all non-Moslems or, as the Muslim world likes to describe them: infidels.

One still hears the phrase by well-meaning but misguided individuals that Islam means peace. No. Islam means submission; not submission to the will of the people but solely to the will of Allah. And Moslems may not ever question the teachings of the prophet Mohammed.

Islam also teaches that it is superior to all other religions. It is Islam über alles. The Moslem is taught that Judaism and Christianity perverted the will of Allah and Islam received the superior revelation requiring, therefore, that Jews and Christians ultimately submit to Islam.

Islam bases its ideology on five pillars – Witness to Allah and his prophet Mohammed; Prayer five times daily facing Mecca and the Ka’ba; Almsgiving to the poor and to the mosque; Fasting during the month of Ramadan; and Pilgrimage to Mecca. But there is a sixth pillar called jihad. This is now the greatest of all threats to Judeo-Christian civilization. Indeed one can say that much of the world faces an existential threat to its survival, not from the manufactured and erroneous science of global warming but from global jihad.

According to Abraham Katsh, who wrote the following as far back as 1954 in his book on the Koran:

“The duty of Jihad, the waging of Holy War, has been raised to the dignity of a sixth canonical obligation … To the Moslem, the world is divided into regions under Islamic control, the dar al-Islam, and regions not subjected as yet, the dar al-harb.

“Between this area of warfare and the Muslim dominated part of the world there can be no peace. Practical considerations may induce the Muslim leaders to conclude an armistice, but the obligation to conquer and, if possible, convert never lapses. Nor can territory once under Muslim rule be lawfully yielded to the unbeliever. Legal theory has gone so far as to define as dar al-Islam any area where at least one Muslim custom is observed.

“Thanks to this concept, the Moslem is required to subdue the infidel, and he who dies in the path of Allah is considered a martyr and assured of Paradise and of unique privileges there.”

Now we can see how there will never be a true and lasting peace by the Muslim Arabs – who call themselves Palestinians, or by the Arab and Muslim states – with Israel. Islam will not allow it. So it is pointless, therefore, and against God’s Covenant with His people, to give away one single centimeter of biblical and ancestral Jewish land to the so-called Palestinian Arabs or to anyone else.

Nor can there ever be peace between Muslim Kosovo and the Orthodox Christian Serbs or between Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India, to name a few of the endless Muslim engendered wars raging in the world today. The simple reason is that Islam will never countenance or accept peace with any non-Muslim neighbor: Never.

Jihad requires the Moslem believers to spread what they consider “Islamic truth” by all means, especially by the sword. Now in our modern world, the sword gives way to the most lethal and devastating weaponry in man’s military arsenal. That is why the leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, seeks the ultimate nuclear weapon to destroy Israel and usher in what he believes to be the Islamic messiah, the 12th Imam.

As I’ve written previously, Islam, through jihad, is to spread what is called in Arabic, Dar al-Islam, the “House of Submission” meaning those lands occupied and controlled by Islamic states and under Sharia law. Those nations not yet conquered by Muslim forces are in what is called the “Dar al-Harb: the House of War, and must be eventually overcome by endless war.

Islam seeks to impose Sharia law wherever it gains control. It is based upon the Koran and the Sunna and has not been reformed or modified since the 7th century. It can never be changed. That is why we see on the front page of the Times magazine the horrific photograph of the 18 year old Afghani girl whose nose and ears were cut off by her husband, acting according to Islamic Sharia law. Her offense was that she had fled from her cruel family and in-laws and, as a mere woman under Taliban Islamic rule, she had little or no rights.

Saudi Arabia invests endless billions of dollars to build mosques throughout the world. The international blanketing of cities with mosques is just another expression of jihad. In Western Europe, most famously renamed Eurabia by the writer, Bat Yeor, there may soon come a time when there will be more minarets than steeples.

Perhaps the most egregious and blatant example of Islamic triumphalism is the planned construction of a giant mosque in New York, almost upon the site of the horrific destruction of the Twin Towers by Moslem terrorists acting in the name of Allah.

The proposed Cordoba Mosque (named after the Islamic defeat of Christians in Spain during the 8th century) is to be opened in 2011 on the very anniversary of the September 11, 2001 atrocity – a flagrant insult to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died at the hands of Moslem fanatics and believers, most of them Saudis.

It is depressing to see and hear liberals such as White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, and New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, denigrating principled opponents of the giant mosque, accusing them of being against religious freedom. This is a canard and as baseless as the claim by proponents of the building of a mosque at ground zero as being merely Muslim outreach and interfaith understanding.

What liberals and “progressives” fail to understand by the very location of the mosque is what jihad is all about. Subdue the “infidel” at all costs. For Moslems, the Islamic obligation to conquer and convert the unbeliever and impose Sharia law must never lapse.

Victor Sharpe is the author of Volumes One and Two of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state. The books may be purchased on line from the publisher http://www.lulu.com or from http://www.Amazon.com

Ground Zero Mosque Iman Rauf Justifies Islamic Terrorism

Via

Who is Feisal Abdul Rauf — the man behind the ‘Ground Zero mosque’?

To support these charges, his detractors cite Rauf’s refusal to call Hamas a terrorist group and his equating of certain U.S. actions with Islamic terrorism. The Cordoba Initiative and its Park51 project aren’t about dialogue, critics say, but rather about proselytizing and spreading Islam.

What are some of his controversial quotes?
“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims.” (Speech in Australia, 2005)

“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened [on 9/11], but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened… We have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” (CBS 60 Minutes, Sept. 30, 2001)

“The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.” (Quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 2004)

YouTube: Imam Rauf “America Has Muslim Blood on Hands

Imam Rauf’s Newly Discovered Explosive Audio Tapes

Pakistanis pose as Indians after New York bomb scare by Pakistani Islamic terrorist

Pakistanis pose as Indians after NY bomb scare
Walden Siew, NEW YORK
Fri May 7

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Pakistani merchants and job seekers in the United States, still reeling from economic hardship since the September 11 attacks of 2001, are posing as Indians to avoid discrimination in the wake of the Times Square bomb attempt.

Once again, a man of Pakistani descent is at the center of a security story, leading to backlash against the Pakistani-American community.

Faisal Shahzad, 30, a naturalized American born in Pakistan, was arrested on Monday, two days after authorities say he parked a crude car bomb in New York’s busy Times Square.

Suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and convicted 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef are also of Pakistani decent, and anti-American militants fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan take refuge in Pakistan.

In Brooklyn, home to one of the largest Pakistani populations in the United States, business is scant at the various grocery, halal meat and sweet cake shops since a Pakistani-American was suspected in the Times Square plot. More than 100 businesses along Coney Island Avenue have closed due to a 30 percent drop in business since 2001, a merchants’ association said.

In Washington, an American man of Pakistani descent told of coming under suspicion this week when he tried to buy garden fertilizer. The Times Square car bomb contained a non-explosive type of fertilizer.

While there have been no reported incidents since the failed car bomb attack last Saturday, some Pakistanis are bracing for reprisals. Police have increased foot patrols.

“A lot of Pakistanis can’t get jobs after 9/11 and now it’s even worse,” said Asghar Choudhri, an accountant and chairman of Brooklyn’s Pakistani American Merchant Association. “They are now pretending they are Indian so they can get a job.”

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947, creating hostilities that ordinarily would lead a Pakistani to resent being mistaken for an Indian.

According to the latest U.S. census data, some 210,410 people of Pakistani origin reside in the United States. Nearly 15,000 Pakistanis received U.S. immigrant visas last year.

“I want to make clear that we will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this week, noting there are always “a few bad apples.”

New York is “the city where you can practice your religion and say what you want to say and be in charge of your own destiny and we’re going to keep it that way,” Bloomberg said.

SUSPICION OF GARDENING

In Washington, an American of Pakistani heritage who would only be identified as Farhan, said a manager of a suburban home-improvement store prevented him from buying two bags of fertilizer for his family’s lawn on Tuesday.

Farhan, who was born in northern Virginia, said police arrived soon after, investigated and allowed him to buy the fertilizer.

“What kind of a country are we living in when a 22-year-old male can’t buy fertilizer?” Farhan asked. “I’m American. I’m not Pakistani.”

Farhan said the store had subsequently apologized and the case appeared to be one of an overzealous manager rather than store policy.

Merchants in New York, many of whom declined to be named, still remember reprisals after September 11. Soon after the attacks, there was a drive-by shooting in Brooklyn at a Pakistani restaurant, which is now closed.

The local merchants association has shrunk to 150 members, from about 250 merchants almost a decade ago.

The FBI also arrested many undocumented workers in the neighborhood, leading to a wave of deportations, and residents would call law enforcement to make claims against their neighbors, including many false claims, Choudhri said.

“After 9/11, we took much pain,” he said. “After that, a small beating is nothing. Now the Pakistanis are not so much scared but we are ashamed. We are embarrassed that the name of Pakistan came up.”

(Additional reporting by William Maclean in London and Frances Kerry in Washington; Editing by Daniel Trotta and Bill Trott)