Wednesday, July 21, 2004

CIA'S CBRN Pamphlet

William's Note:  Here's the CIAs al Qaida CBRN pamphlet--the version here at
has the pictures and charts.

Please note: "This pamphlet contains a summary of typical agents and CBRN devices available to al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups. It is not intended to be a summary of the overall threat from al-Qa'ida's CBRN program."

Al-Qa'ida and associated extremist groups have a wide variety of potential agents and delivery means to choose from for chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) attacks. Al-Qa'ida's end goal is the use of CBRN to cause mass casualties; however, most attacks by the group—and especially by associated extremists—probably will be small scale, incorporating relatively crude delivery means and easily produced or obtained chemicals, toxins, or radiological substances. The success of any al-Qa'ida attack and the number of ensuing casualties would depend on many factors, including the technical expertise of those involved, but most scenarios could cause panic and disruption.

Several groups of mujahidin associated with al-Qa'ida have attempted to carry out "poison plot" attacks in Europe with easily produced chemicals and toxins best suited to assassination and small-scale scenarios. These agents could cause hundreds of casualties and widespread panic if used in multiple simultaneous attacks.
Al-Qa'ida is interested in radiological dispersal devices (RDDs) or "dirty bombs."  Construction of an RDD is well within its capabilities as radiological materials are relatively easy to acquire from industrial or medical sources. Usama Bin Ladin's operatives may try to launch conventional attacks against the nuclear industrial infrastructure of the United States in a bid to cause contamination, disruption, and terror.
A document recovered from an al-Qa'ida facility in Afghanistan contained a sketch of a crude nuclear device.
Spray devices disseminating biological warfare (BW) agents have the highest potential impact. Both 11 September attack leader Mohammad Atta and Zacharias Moussaoui expressed interest in crop dusters, raising our concern that al-Qa'ida has considered using aircraft to disseminate BW agents.
Analysis of an al-Qa'ida document recovered in Afghanistan in summer 2002 indicates the group has crude procedures for making mustard agent, sarin, and VX.
This pamphlet contains a summary of typical agents and CBRN devices available to al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups. It is not intended to be a summary of the overall threat from al-Chemical Agents
Terrorists have considered a wide range of toxic chemicals for attacks. Typical plots focus on poisoning foods or spreading the agent on surfaces to poison via skin contact, but some also include broader dissemination techniques.
Terrorists have considered using a number of toxic cyanide compounds.
Sodium or potassium cyanides are white-to-pale yellow salts that can be easily used to poison food or drinks. Cyanide salts can be disseminated as a contact poison when mixed with chemicals that enhance skin penetration, but may be detected since most people will notice if they touch wet or greasy surfaces contaminated with the mixture.
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and cyanogen chloride (ClCN) are colorless-to-pale yellow liquids that will turn into a gas near room temperature. HCN has a characteristic odor of bitter almonds, and ClCN has an acrid choking odor and causes burning pain in the victim's eyes. These signs may provide enough warning to enable evacuation or ventilation of the attack site before the agent reaches a lethal concentration.

Both HCN and ClCN need to be released at a high concentration—only practical in an enclosed area—to be effective, therefore, leaving the area or ventilating will significantly reduce the agent's lethality.
Exposure to cyanide may produce nausea, vomiting, palpitations, confusion, hyperventilation, anxiety, and vertigo that may progress to agitation, stupor, coma, and death. At high doses, cyanides cause immediate collapse. Medical treatments are available, but they need to be used immediately for severely exposed victims.
Mustard Agent
Mustard is a blister agent that poses a contact and vapor hazard. Its color ranges from clear to dark brown depending on purity, and it has a characteristic garliclike odor. Mustard is a viscous liquid at room temperature.

Mustard is not commercially available, but its synthesis does not require significant expertise if a step-by-step procedure with diagrams is available.
Initial skin contact with mustard causes mild skin irritation, which develops into more severe yellow fluid-filled blisters. Inhalation of mustard damages the lungs, causes difficulty breathing, and death by suffocation in severe cases due to water in the lungs.  For both skin contact and inhalation, symptoms appear within six to 24 hours. There are only limited medical treatments available for victims of mustard-agent poisoning.
Nerve Agents
Sarin, tabun, and VX are highly toxic military agents that disrupt a victim's nervous system by blocking the transmission of nerve signals.

These agents are not commercially available, and their synthesis requires significant chemical expertise.
Exposure to nerve agents causes pinpoint pupils, salivation, and convulsions that can lead to death.   Medical treatments are available, but they need to be used immediately for severely exposed victims.    
Toxic Industrial Chemicals
There are a wide range of toxic industrial chemicals that—while not as toxic as cyanide, mustard, or nerve agents—can be used in much larger quantities to compensate for their lower toxicity.
Chlorine and phosgene are industrial chemicals that are transported in multiton shipments by road and rail. Rupturing the container can easily disseminate these gases. The effects of chlorine and phosgene are similar to those of mustard agent.
Organophosphate pesticides such as parathion are in the same chemical class as nerve agents. Although these pesticides are much less toxic, their effects and medical treatments are the same as for military-grade nerve agents.
[Table of Contents]
Biological Agents
Bacillus anthracis, the bacterium that causes anthrax, is capable of causing mass casualties. Symptoms usually appear within one to six days after exposure and include fever, malaise, fatigue, and shortness of breath. The disease is usually fatal unless antibiotic treatment is started within hours of inhaling anthrax spores; however, it is not contagious. Few people are vaccinated against anthrax.

Anthrax can be disseminated in an aerosol or used to contaminate food and water.
Cutaneous anthrax can be caused by skin contact with B. anthracis. This form of the disease, which is easily treated with antibiotics, is rarely fatal.
Botulinum toxin
Botulinum toxin is produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, which occurs naturally in the soil. Crude but viable methods to produce small quantities of this lethal toxin have been found in terrorist training manuals.

Symptoms usually occur 24 to 36 hours after exposure, but onset of illness may take several days if the toxin is present in low doses. They include vomiting, abdominal pain, muscular weakness, and visual disturbance.
Botulinum toxin would be effective in small-scale poisonings or aerosol attacks in enclosed spaces, such as movie theaters. The toxin molecule is likely too large to penetrate intact skin.
Ricin is a plant toxin that is 30 times more potent than the nerve agent VX by weight and is readily obtainable by extraction from common castor beans. There is no treatment for ricin poisoning after it has entered the bloodstream. Victims start to show symptoms within hours to days after exposure, depending on the dosage and route of administration.

Terrorists have looked at delivering ricin in foods and as a contact poison, although we have no scientific data to indicate that ricin can penetrate intact skin.
Ricin will remain stable in foods as long as they are not heated, and it will have few indicators because it does not have a strong taste and is off-white in color.
[Table of Contents]
Radiological and Nuclear Devices
Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD)
An RDD is a conventional bomb not a yield-producing nuclear device. RDDs are designed to disperse radioactive material to cause destruction, contamination, and injury from the radiation produced by the material. An RDD can be almost any size, defined only by the amount of radioactive material and explosives.

A passive RDD is a system in which unshielded radioactive material is dispersed or placed manually at the target.
An explosive RDD—often called a "dirty bomb"—is any system that uses the explosive force of detonation to disperse radioactive material. A simple explosive RDD consisting of a lead-shielded container—commonly called a "pig"—and a kilogram of explosive attached could easily fit into a backpack.
An atmospheric RDD is any system in which radioactive material is converted into a form that is easily transported by air currents.
Use of an RDD by terrorists could result in health, environmental, and economic effects as well as political and social effects. It will cause fear, injury, and possibly lead to levels of contamination requiring costly and time-consuming cleanup efforts.
A variety of radioactive materials are commonly available and could be used in an RDD, including Cesium-137, Strontium-90, and Cobalt-60. Hospitals, universities, factories, construction companies, and laboratories are possible sources for these radioactive materials.
Improvised Nuclear Device (IND)
An IND is intended to cause a yield-producing nuclear explosion. An IND could consist of diverted nuclear weapon components, a modified nuclear weapon, or indigenous-designed device.

INDs can be categorized into two types:  implosion and gun assembled. Unlike RDDs that can be made with almost any radioactive material, INDs require fissile material—highly enriched uranium or plutonium—to produce nuclear yield.


New Book Says U.S. Cities Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack with Improvised Nuclear Weapons

  William's Note:  This book can be download from
CNS. The Center is an excellent resource for terrorism studies


New Book Says U.S. Cities Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack with Improvised Nuclear Weapons

By Charles D. Ferguson, William C. Potter, with Amy Sands, Leonard S. Spector, and Fred L. Wehling
June 18, 2004
The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism, a new book from the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), warns that substandard security at nuclear facilities in Europe, Central Asia, Russia, and Pakistan increases the risk of terrorists seizing highly enriched uranium to make crude, but devastating, nuclear explosives. Led by CNS Director William Potter and CNS Scientist-in-Residence Charles Ferguson, a team of researchers, including Leonard Spector, Amy Sands, and Fred Wehling, conducted a two-year study of the motivations and capabilities of terrorist organizations to carry out attacks using stolen nuclear weapons, to construct and detonate crude nuclear weapons known as improvised nuclear devices (INDs), to strike nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities, and to build and use radiological weapons or "dirty bombs."
Dr. Potter and Dr. Ferguson maintain that there is a greater likelihood today than any time in the past three decades that nuclear weapons will actually be used. This stark assessment is based upon two premises: (1) non-state actors have emerged who seek nuclear weapons in order to use them; and (2) crude but real nuclear weapons, as distinct from radiological dispersal devices, are well within the technical reach of some terrorist organizations.
The book, funded by the Ploughshares Fund, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), urges the United States and its international partners to take immediate steps to prevent the most catastrophic forms of nuclear terrorism and to reduce the consequences of the most likely nuclear terror attacks. Priority tasks include securing and reducing tactical nuclear warheads in Russia; securing, consolidating, and eliminating highly enriched uranium (HEU); and providing for secure storage and disposal of radioactive materials used in medicine, scientific research, and industry. The book also stresses the need to educate the public on the real risks of radiation exposure and radioactive contamination to help psychologically immunize citizens against fear of radiological attacks, which the researchers conclude are all but inevitable in the coming years.
The book strongly urges the United States and international partners to work immediately to reduce the probability of nuclear terror acts with the highest consequences and mitigate the consequences of the nuclear terror acts that are the most probable.
The book's highest priority recommendations include:

Put HEU First. The United States must dramatically revise U.S. efforts to protect fissile materials abroad so as to make securing, consolidating, and eliminating highly enriched uranium (HEU) the leading and most urgent task, taking clear precedence over addressing the dangers posed by plutonium, which must, nonetheless, remain an important priority. The overarching principle guiding policy should be to move toward a world in which fewer countries retain HEU, fewer facilities within countries possess HEU, and fewer locations within those facilities have HEU present.

Reduce Nuclear Risks in South and Central Asia. The United States and its allies must recognize that for the moment, the locus of greatest nuclear terror danger is South and Central Asia, a zone where Islamic militant terrorist groups are very active and where the risk of their gaining access to nuclear materials - especially from unreliable elements within the Pakistan establishment or from certain vulnerable sites in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan - is highest.

Secure Vulnerable Russian Nuclear Weapons. The United States and Russia must secure Russia's most vulnerable nuclear weapons, in particular those tactical nuclear weapons that are forward-deployed and portable and that may lack internal locks, known as permissive action links.

Prepare for Radiological Attack. The use of radioactive materials to cause massive disruption and economic loss is by far the most likely nuclear terror act. Although loss of life and destruction of property would not begin to rival that from a nuclear detonation, the harm caused would be grievous, particularly if radiological attacks were launched in multiple locations. Given the significant quantities of radioactive material currently outside regulatory control around the world, the unambiguous evidence of terrorist interest in using these materials to cause harm, and the ease of carrying out a radiological attack, we believe that such an attack is all but inevitable. Thus, even as the United States pursues measures to reduce the availability of radioactive materials, it should greatly increase its preparations for a radiological terror event through the following measures.

Improve Protection of Nuclear Facilities against Attack or Sabotage. The United States must increase preparedness to address more demanding threats - 9/11 type attacks -- than believed to be incorporated in current regulations. Moreover, similar to the nuclear industry's preparation for beyond design-basis accidents, the NRC and the nuclear industry must expedite preparedness for beyond design-basis attacks or sabotage of nuclear facilities.


A Previous Osama and Nukes Story

William's note:  I have been asked about several of my recent posts--here's a story from October 2001 from the
Christian Science Monitor that reviews some of the earlier reports.

Nuclear attack a real, if remote, possibilityUS eyes Pakistan, former Soviet Union as likely sources of weapons-grade material.
By Brad Knickerbocker Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
As the story goes, Osama bin Laden offered criminals in Chechnya $30 million and two tons of opium in return for 20 Russian nuclear warheads.
The chilling account, contained in a 1999 Arab-language news report, may be apocryphal. But what is certain is that for most of the 1990s, Mr. bin Laden has been trying to get materials to make a nuclear bomb. Acquiring weapons of mass destruction, he has said, is a "religious duty" necessary "to terrorize the enemies of God." Some of his associates (now in prison or witness-protection programs) have recounted efforts to obtain weapons-grade uranium or plutonium.
Today, as the United States bombs terrorist sites and other targets in Afghanistan, the prospect of a nuclear terrorist attack looms larger as a domestic security concern. The likelihood of such an attack, government officials and experts say, may be small - but the possible consequences are too horrific to ignore.
Among the major concerns:
• The political instability of Pakistan, a nuclear power in the region that - more so than Russia and former Soviet states - could be Mr. bin Laden's source of nuclear materials. The Pakistani intelligence service used to work closely with Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime, and many in Pakistan (including, perhaps, military and intelligence sources) support the Taliban and bin Laden. Last week, Pakistan detained for questioning two of its former senior nuclear-weapons scientists - men who have expressed sympathy with the Taliban cause.
• Knowledge that with relatively little radioactive material - even low-level waste from a power plant or medical facility - terrorists could construct a "dirty bomb" using simple explosives rather than the more sophisticated and difficult-to-build nuclear weapons. Such devices, hidden in a truck or ship-borne cargo container, could inflict considerable casualties followed by widespread radiation poisoning.
• Vulnerability of 10 major nuclear-weapons plants in the US, several of which are near major cities. In mock attacks, the "terrorists" were able to acquire weapons-grade nuclear materials or otherwise achieve their goals in more than half the cases.
In the face of such threats, the US is considering several options.
These include strengthening nuclear-nonproliferation treaties, increasing security at US nuclear-weapons facilities, and buying Russia's leftover nuclear materials. More immediately, some experts suggest preparing US Special Operations Forces to unilaterally disable or seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons. (In the New Yorker magazine this week, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh writes that US military and intelligence agents are training with an Israeli special-operations unit for such a mission.)
In addition, several US lawmakers have said America should be prepared to use its tactical nuclear weapons to prevent or respond to another domestic terrorist attack. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - repeating long-standing US military doctrine - has not ruled that out.
While the former Soviet Union has been a top concern - officials there can't account for all nuclear-weapons items, and many now-jobless nuclear scientists may be susceptible to bribery - much of the focus is now on Pakistan.
"Pakistan's military government is walking a tightrope between pressure from the Bush administration on one side and anti-American Islamic militants on the other," says Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information here. "Growing street opposition from the latter could certainly destabilize or even topple the regime, and in the midst of such dissolution, the weakening of nuclear security would inevitably occur."
"The ranks of government and military personnel are also fairly riddled with sympathizers of the radical Islamic faction, posing a distinct risk of insiders colluding to spirit away a bomb or two for bin Laden and other terrorists," says Dr. Blair, a former US Air Force nuclear-missile launch control officer.
Intelligence sources believe that Pakistan has enough plutonium and weapons-grade enriched uranium to make 30 to 50 nuclear bombs or warheads.
"Whether or not all of Pakistan's nuclear explosive material has been converted to nuclear weapons is unknown, leaving the possibility that many kilograms of bulk material may be poorly protected," warns the Institute for Science and International Security. "Security forces at storage sites may be unable to thwart a determined attack by extremist groups allied with bin Laden or the Taliban, particularly if even a small number of guards are sympathetic to the Islamic fundamentalist cause. In the extreme case - should extremists take over the Pakistani government - control over Pakistan's nuclear explosive materials and weapons could be lost irretrievably."
Testimony in the trial of men charged with the 1998 attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania revealed that bin Laden associates in Sudan may have tried to obtain uranium for a radiological weapon - material that may have originated in South Africa.
Meanwhile, concern for the safety of US nuclear-weapons plants is mounting. A recent report by the Project on Government Oversight warned of "serious security flaws at nuclear- weapons facilities around the country." "When our security efforts do not protect our weapons-grade nuclear materials against over half the mock terrorist attacks, it is well past time for a reassessment," says Danielle Brian of the watchdog group.
Rep. Christopher Shays (R) of Connecticut, chairman of the House National Security Subcommittee, is planning to investigate. "In this critical environment," he says, "it is important for the Department of Energy [which oversees the US nuclear-weapons program] to assure the integrity of basic security measures for the protection of nuclear-weapon facilities ... against both internal and external threats."


Al Qaeda's Nightmare Scenario Emerges

Williams's note: This is a 
weekly standard Artcle which ran last year but bears remembering as we roll into this year. Bin Laden has vowed to "die in the belly of eagle," this year.

Al Qaeda's Nightmare Scenario Emerges Does Osama bin Laden plan to become the ultimate suicide bomber? by Mansoor Ijaz

OSAMA BIN LADEN, or some good likeness of him, spoke from the ether again on two occasions last week, releasing two undated audiotapes as Muslims completed their pilgrimages to Mecca. His call to Jihad did not stop at tying himself to Iraq's people, by which he had clearly hoped to provoke Washington into immediate unilateral military action against Saddam Hussein. Nor did it end with his messianic recitation of verses in the Koran that clearly demonstrated he knows the end game is near. Predicting his martyrdom this year, he vowed to die in "the belly of the Eagle," an Islamist reference to ending his life in a final act of terror against the United States on our soil. The man, put simply, is on the run.

Bin Laden's cowardice shines through his rhetoric. For the first time since the September 11 attacks against the United States, bin Laden demonstrated fear through his choice of words. In setting forth plans for his suicide, he probably came to the conclusion that al Qaeda's retaliation infrastructure around the world had been so effectively and systematically dismantled by western intelligence that his terrorists may not be able to mount a credible response to any planned U.S. military action in Iraq in the near future.

 Like many Mafia bosses before him, he appears to have decided that when the going looks tough--the poison network in Europe, for example, has been decimated by defections and confessions--it's better to exit stage left.

While bin Laden's vision of dividing the West and driving a wedge between the United States and her allies, whether Arab or European, has become a political reality, his terrorist acts have not yet reached their intended crescendo--to use a weapon of mass destruction against civilians. That is why bin Laden spoke and why we need to quickly and effectively decipher what he is really trying to tell us.

A plethora of available but seemingly unconnected evidence provides important clues for what may be bin Laden's final act. To understand the data, we must be imaginative and accept that al Qaeda's highest military objective is the economic paralysis of the West--killing us softly, to quote Roberta Flack. Hardcore acts of terrorism against civilian targets that cause mass casualties are certainly a part of the al Qaeda Jihad thesis, but these acts are designed more for recruitment than long-term debilitating impact.

Constructing the Tools of Armageddon
AL QAEDA has explosives expertise that is unsurpassed in non-military circles. It gets military-grade C4 charges from China and Iran; it employs Hezbollah and Hamas guerillas trained in the fine arts of detonation devices (witness particularly the maritime attacks against the USS Cole and the French oil tanker); and it has brainwashed legions of men who are willing to die for the cause.
What's missing? Plutonium, and the scientific expertise to build a crude but highly explosive nuclear bomb. (Plutonium is more easily transported without detection and offers a bigger bang for the buck than typical enriched uranium devices.)
Who's supplying the material and expertise? North Korea, and, surprisingly, our ally in the war against al Qaeda, Pakistan. Pyongyang--with a lot of help from China (which is supplying key chemicals to separate plutonium from depleted uranium) and Pakistan (which gave North Korea its uranium enrichment centrifuges and tutored its nuclear scientists)--will be able to churn out Coke cans of plutonium at the rate of one per week by the end of March.
According to my intelligence sources in the Far East, the outlying renegade provinces of Indonesia (Aceh, for example) and the Philippines (where al Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayyaf rules) are infested with senior al Qaeda leaders. Each one is financially empowered to purchase North Korea's plutonium the moment it is reprocessed. Ayman Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number two, was reportedly in Indonesia last September, a month before the Bali bomb blast that killed 200 mostly Australian tourists. He could easily be there again.
We also know from published--and so far undisputed--reports that from February 2000 until July 2002, eight senior Pakistani nuclear scientists left their country without obtaining the required No Objection Certificates needed for travel abroad. They remain unaccounted for and at least some are reported to have traveled to Australia and Indonesia.
In a worst case scenario, al Qaeda could construct a crude but effective nuclear device in weeks, if not a month, from Hezbollah C4, North Korean plutonium, and a little nuclear expertise from disaffected Pakistani scientists. Making a "dirty" radiological dispersion device with Strontium or Cesium also remains an option, although it is clear that al Qaeda has the intent and resources to go for weapons that cause maximum collateral damage.
Add to this troubling possibility the fact that the terror group has resorted to the use of seafaring vessels to move its people around, and now has a fleet large and diverse enough that one or two could seamlessly move into a large harbor or congested waterway undetected, and a picture emerges of an unparalleled potential threat to the global economy from the paralysis that could be caused by a crude plutonium bomb exploding in the belly of an al Qaeda ship with bin Laden onboard.

The Targets
THE EASIEST TARGETS today for such an al Qaeda plot are Singapore harbor--the world's second largest seaport and the gateway to and from all trade done in the Far East--and the mouth of the Persian Gulf, which if irradiated could disrupt the normal flow of reasonably priced oil for half a century, no matter how much oil Alaska, Russia and Venezuela produce. There have been reports that easily accessed Australian ports, possibly even Sydney harbor, might be the target of an al-Qaeda dirty bomb plot. There are other potential targets with more symbolic value: the Panama Canal, to demonstrate al Qaeda can hit us again in our hemisphere; the Suez Canal, to hurt what bin Laden perceives as the traitorous Arab governments of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia simultaneously; and the Straits of Gibraltar, where al Qaeda cells in Morocco tried to launch an attack last year.
But the target closest to bin Laden's heart likely remains a seaport that would allow him to go to his Allah in the belly of the Eagle--perhaps on the western seaboard of the United States. One thing is sure: Bin Laden's ego and ethos will compel him to go out in a blaze of glory that will secure the recruitment of his legions for decades to come and enshrine him as one of history's most evil beings.
America has a moral responsibility to the rest of the world to get on with the onerous task of dismantling and destroying those who enable al Qaeda's evil designs. To delay or fail in this task is to watch the destruction of humanity, bit by bit, by men who never understood God or His teachings, and with whom we can never achieve peaceful co-existence.

Mansoor Ijaz, chairman of Crescent Investment Management in New York, negotiated Sudan's counterterrorism offer of data on al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and other terrorist groups to the Clinton administration in 1997. He also worked closely with Mujahedeen and Islamist leaders in Pakistan to enact the July 2000 cease-fire in Kashmir between Muslim separatists and India's security forces. 


Monday, July 19, 2004

A jihadist posting you may want to read

William's note:   Yes, this could be the result of smoking more than tobacco in a hookah bar--yes, this could be some whacked-out muslim fantasizing about Allah judging America. Yes this could be a hoax. I debated whether to run this or not.
Yet, if you look at all the chatter--and follow the trail--some MASSIVE ATTACK is coming.
On July 11, 2004, an Al-Qaeda Yahoo group EOM_and_Daleel posted a chilling message: 
 We will be in place within next 72 hours. We pray this is the time Allah has selected for us to carry out our missions. Until then my brother we wait and pray for the great victory Allah will bestow upon us. 
All; freedom fighters of Mohammad have moved forward in the past few days and will move another step toward the victory Allah has willed against the infidels in next days. Just be a little more patient and you will all receive what you deny or demand proof of.
What is to come will start slowly with small incidents and then there will be three large              events which will stun Amerikkka. Amerikkka has celebrated last birthday. 
One third, one half of your country will be unliveable. Many of you say 911 can never happen again. I assure you it can and it will happen and these events will be of far mor consequence. You will see. The cave of darkness is upon you, like an eclipse of the sun only this one will leave Amerikkkka dark and in death.
You can not remove the darkness that is coming. No light will remove the darkness.              DEATH TO AMERIKKKA ALLAH'S VICTORY HAS BEGUN. THE FIRES COME FROM              THE SKY AND THE INFIDELS SHALL BURN IN AN INSTANT IN TIME. THE              WORLD SHALL BE RID OF THE NON BELIEVERS IN THE BLINK OF THE EYE. THE LAWS OF              ISLAM SHALL UNITE THE WORLD AND ALL SHALL LIVE UNDER GOD'S              DECREE,Either way Amerikkkkans will not be able to return to tell us of their god.
There is only on way, the truth of Islam and there is only one God- that is Allah. You will all see soon. You will get what you deny is coming.
I can tell you there are plans for three nuklear detonations  within Amerikkka within the next weeks. There will be prior events  before these detonations which will terrify amerikkka in their homes  and their cities. Their cars, their buses, their shopping malls, their  sporting events, none will be safe from that which Allah has decreed. 
You see Amerikkka is in moral decay w hen a concubine can speak such foul language. Osama has decreed the use of these weapons on orders and  behlaf of Allah. The prophets have decreed we use every means possible to slay the infodels and condem them into the eternal fires. Yet       the coming fires will bring no light to the infodel as they will have entered and been consumed in the cave of darkness. 
 The weapons are in our possession and are being assembled and located in the              approriate  regions of Amerikkka. This why I am here to aid those who bring the  peces into Amerikkka from Mexico and Canada. The last and final  stages  completed two nights ago. Now transport to target begins They will  be detonated at the appropriate time. Watch events as they start minor  then Allah will signal us to strike in order to proclaim the              victory             for   all of Islam.                   
 Amer El-Maati


Four or 10-million American deaths?

Here's an excellent Jonathon Halevi article which you can read at
Intelligence or at  It was from last year but very timely with the Islamists plans for this year.
Debating Islamic Retaliation: 4 Million or 10 Million American Deaths?
As noted, radical Islamic scholars rely in their rulings on the principle of retaliation while justifying indiscriminate mass murder of Christians. Suliman Abu Ghaith, a prominent al-Qaeda leader, in his famous series of public letters entitled Under the Shade of the Lances and directed at Muslim youth, listed the crimes of the U.S. against the Arab and Muslim world. He argued that the U.S. is responsible directly and indirectly, in its long-lasting war on Islam, for the death of four million Muslims, including 1.2 million Iraqis, 260,000 Palestinians (as a result of its support for Israel), 12,000 Afghans and Arab fighters, 13,000 Somalis, and millions more throughout the world. From his perspective, al-Qaeda's attacks in Washington and New York in September 2001 are not enough to balance the equation of killing. Basing his claims on the Islamic principle of retaliation, Abu Ghaith argues that Muslims have the right to kill four million Americans, including one million children, to displace eight million Americans, and to cripple hundreds of thousands more. Moreover, Abu Ghaith asserts that Muslims are religiously entitled to use chemical and biological weapons in their war against the U.S.19
Nasser bin Hamed al-Fahd, another prominent Saudi Salafi scholar, in an Islamic ruling published in May 2003, approved the use of weapons of mass destruction against America. He also based his indictment on the principle of retaliation, but argued that Muslims have the right to kill ten million Americans in response to the crimes of their government against the Muslim nation. Al-Fahd elaborated the circumstances under which it is religiously permitted to kill non-combatant Americans: During a military operation when it is hard to distinguish between soldiers and civilians and according to military needs or considerations. Ascribing great importance to the military considerations, he asserted that the military leaders who are responsible for the execution of jihad have the authority to make the decisions concerning what types of weapons to use against the infidels. If they decided to use weapons of mass destruction based on military need, it would be an obligation under Islamic law.20
Similarly, radical Muslim scholars have justified the killing of 2,750 civilians in al-Qaeda's September 2001 attacks. A senior al-Qaeda operative named Saif al-Din al-Ansari argued in his book The September 11th Attack that the killing of thousands of civilians in the suicide attacks did not go beyond the "special circumstances" in which Muslims are religiously permitted to kill infidel civilians. These attacks were justified because they were conducted according to the principle of retaliation as well as the Islamic religious principle that permits the killing of civilians when necessary in order to destroy the enemy's fortresses, when it is impossible to differentiate between military and civilians.21 Support for this position has also been expressed by Saudi Islamic scholars Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi and Ali al-Khudeir.

Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi referred to the September attacks in his Islamic ruling as follows: "Any decisions taken by the American infidel state, particularly those dealing with war and other critical decisions, are taken based upon public opinion surveys or representatives' voting in their infidel legislatures. These legislatures represent primarily the people's opinion....Therefore, any American citizen who voted for the war is considered a combatant or at least an accessory [to the war]."22
The Saudi Sheikh Ali al-Khudier wrote in another Islamic ruling: "We should not regret the deaths of civilians in the Twin Towers attack since the American is an infidel because of his connection to his government. He fights for it, supports it with money, opinions or advice, and this is the type of their political regime. Therefore, they deserved what they experienced, since their fighting, support, and opinions deserve punishment."23
Advocating Total Extermination of Islam's Enemies
Al-Qaeda has adopted a broader interpretation of the religious command concerning the killing of infidels. It is considered an absolute command that does not depend on political circumstances, the need or will to take revenge, or a wish to liberate Muslim lands from infidel rule. Saif al-Din al-Ansari, in an article in al-Qaeda's official periodical, presented the new, comprehensive concept of total extermination of Islam's enemies based on the Quranic verse: "And that He may purge those who believe and deprive the unbelievers of blessings" (Al-Imran, 142). According to al-Ansari, this is the way Allah deals with infidels, who are doomed throughout history to total extermination through various types of death, as was the fate of the people of Noah, Hod, Saleh, Lot, Midian, and Pharaoh. Al-Ansari asserted that the extermination of infidels is a permanent Islamic law and unchangeable fate for infidels that is as relevant today as it was in past generations. According to al-Ansari, "Just as the law of extermination was applied to the infidel forces among the nations in previous days and no one could escape it, so it will be applied to the infidel forces in our day and no one will escape it. Namely, similar to the fate of the Thamoud and 'Ad peoples [two pagan Arab peoples which, according to Islamic tradition, were exterminated due to their rejection of the words of the Prophet], so the American state, the Jewish state, and all other infidel countries will certainly be destroyed."24
Al-Ansari further developed his concept of total extermination in a subsequent article. First, he firmly criticized the Islamic movements that raise the banner of daawa (Islamic preaching) and support the gradual spread of Islam through education, social organizations, and the economy as the preferred means to bring about the victory of Islam over other religions. He asserts that Allah has the power and might to subdue the infidels and to exterminate them by his will. However, He has not done so because of His wish to designate this task to Muslims.
Al-Ansari relies on the Quranic verse: "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace [meaning that Allah will kill the infidels], and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people" (Al-Tawba, 14). The key word in this verse is "by your hands," which indicates the great importance Allah attributes to the physical action of the infidels' extermination. This is even more substantial than the daawa in executing the command of jihad, since the daawa, as important as it might be, could not fulfill God's commandment for extermination.
Al-Ansari wrote: "Allah is capable of exterminating his enemies with no need for intermediaries or the help of anyone. His might is infinite...therefore, when He [Allah] designates the task of extermination of infidels to his believers, He does so as a hidden expression of His power...the infidels' extermination is part of Islamic law, which is operative until the Day of Judgment. Its principal element will be fulfilled only at the hands of the believers, meaning through jihad, which is also to be operative until the Day of Judgment.25


Thinking the Unthinkable

I have recieved an enormous amount of e-mail the past few days and i thank all of you who have taken the time to comment--whether you agree with my analysis or not(except the death threats-which of course prove how mad some of you are).  Here's another excerpt from a MEMRI article that shows how Islamists are actually dicussing what many in America find unthinkable.  A much longer article is at
Special Report 25 MEMRI
VI. The Annihilation Will Be By Weapons of Mass Destruction
One means suggested for annihilating the Jews, Christians, Israel, and the West is through nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Sheikh Nasser ibn Hamed, a well-known Saudi cleric associated with Al-Qa'ida, wrote 'A Treatise on the Ruling Regarding the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction Against the Infidels.' The treatise came in response to a question that came in the wake of media reports regarding Al-Qa'ida's intention to use weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. The question, on its part, was aimed at clarifying Islamic law's view of the permissibility of using weapons of mass destruction in the framework of Jihad, and specifically whether such permissibility would be inclusive or limited only to hour of need. The following is one chapter of Sheikh Hamed's lengthy response; the chapter is called 'Proof that the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction Is Permissible.'
In this chapter of his response, Sheikh Hamed stated that it was permissible to use weapons of mass destruction against 10 million Americans specifically, and against infidels in general, and that support for their use could be found in Islamic religious sources. The chapter was divided into two parts.
The first part discussed the legitimacy of the use of weapons of mass destruction within a particular time frame against a particular enemy "such as the case of America at this time." According to Sheikh Hamed, it is permissible to strike America with weapons of mass destruction in order to repay it in kind. As evidence, Sheikh Hamed cited three Qur'an verses: "If you desire to exact retribution, then adjust the penalty to the wrong you have suffered" [16:126]; "Those whoso transgress against you, you may exact retribution from him in proportion to his transgression" [2:194]; and " The recompense of an injury is a penalty in proportion thereto " [42:40].
After citing the Qur'anic verses, Sheikh Hamed wrote, "Anyone who looks at America's acts of aggression against the Muslims and their lands over the recent decades will permit this [the use of WMDs] based only on the section of Islamic law called 'Repayment in Kind,' without any need to indicate the other evidence.
"Some of the brothers have counted the number of Muslims killed with their [i.e. America's] direct and indirect weapons, and this number has reached nearly 10 million. With regard to the lands burned by their bombs, their means of destruction, and their missiles, only Allah can count. The most recent case we saw with our own eyes is what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq without [mentioning] the fact that many Muslims became refugees.
"If a bomb was dropped on them [i.e. the Americans] that would annihilate 10 million and burn their lands to the same extent that they burned the Muslim lands – this is permissible, with no need to mention any other proof. Yet if we want to annihilate a greater number, we need further evidence."
In the second part of the chapter, Sheikh Hamed presents "the general evidence for the legitimacy according to Islamic law for an inclusive operation of this kind, in the event that Jihad for the sake of Allah requires it."
In his view, "[this evidence] is the texts according to which it is permissible to use this type of weapon in the event that the men of Jihad think it [necessary] for the commonwealth," and proves this with three different pieces of evidence.
The first piece of evidence is "texts that prove it is possible to carry out a surprise nighttime attack on the polytheists even if their offspring will be harmed by it." On this matter, Hamed wrote: "Although it is proven that the Prophet forbade the killing of women and children, [47] if you collect these Hadiths you will find that this is a prohibition on premeditated killing of them. But if their being killed is the result of a surprise attack and a raid, and an inability to distinguish among them [i.e. the enemy under attack] then there is nothing wrong with it, and the Jihad is not called off because of the presence of the women and children of the infidels…
"The second piece of evidence is "the texts that prove it is permissible to burn the land of the enemy…
"Ibn Omar's Hadith [48] proves that the Muslims must use any ploy against their polytheist enemies that weakens their power, thwarts their ploys, and facilitates the path to conquering them, such as felling their trees, drying up their water sources, and besieging them… This Hadith includes clear evidence that it is permissible to burn the land of the enemy if the fighting requires it."
The third piece of evidence is "the texts that prove that it is permissible to strike the enemy with a catapult and with similar things that annihilate them." On this, Sheikh Hamed wrote: "The clerics have agreed that it is permissible to strike the enemy with a catapult and similar things. It is known that the stone of the catapult does not distinguish between women and children and others; it is also [known] that it destroys any building or other thing that stands in its way. "This constitutes proof that it is permissible to destroy the land of the infidels and to kill them – in the event that the Jihad requires this and in the event that the men of influence from among the Mujahideen think so – as the Muslims struck these cities with catapults until they were conquered and it does not say that they ceased and desisted out of fear that the infidels would be annihilated down to the root or that their land would be destroyed."


Al-Qa'ida Magazine Debates Attacks in Saudi Arabia – Proposes More Attacks in the U.S. will Boost Support

William's note:  This is from a
MEMRI that is a translation from al-Qaida's bi-monthly magazine (yes they have one). I plan to post several of the MEMRI tranlations today so you can read for yourself what teh Islamists have been saying they plan.
Al-Qa'ida Magazine Debates Attacks in Saudi Arabia – Proposes More Attacks in the U.S. will Boost Support

For the past several months, Al-Qa'ida operatives have been debating the organization's attacks in Saudi Arabia. There has been no dispute over striking American or Western targets around the world - only regarding attacks within the kingdom. Furthermore, while some favor striking only at "Crusader" – namely American – targets in Saudi Arabia, others are willing to include the Saudi regime and security forces as targets.
The opposition to attacks inside Saudi Arabia, and specifically against the country's regime and security forces, is not based on religious considerations. The arguments against these attacks focuses on tactical matters, such as the importance of Saudi society's identification with and funding of Al-Qa'ida – and the implications of such attacks on the potential of recruiting new members from Saudi Arabia. The following are excerpts from recent editions of the Al-Qa'ida magazine, The Voice of Jihad:

The Attacks and Al-Qa'ida's Status in Saudi Society
High-ranking Al-Qa'ida member Abd Al-'Aziz Al-Muqren, also known as Abu Hajer, who is on Saudi Arabia's most-wanted list, referred to the dispute over the attacks inside Saudi Arabia in an interview with an Al-Qa'ida online magazine, The Voice of Jihad: " Jihad members and Mujahideen sympathizers were divided: Some said we must attack the invading forces that defile the land of the two holy places [i.e. the Arabian Peninsula], and must cause the Americans to become preoccupied with themselves and their bases so they won't leave them to crush the countries and lands of the Muslims, country by country.
"Others said we had to preserve the security of this base and of this country [i.e. Saudi Arabia], from which we recruit the armies, from which we take out the young people, and from which we receive [financial] backing. It must therefore remain safe.
"My opinion is an intermediate opinion, between the two groups. It is true that we must keep the enemy preoccupied with himself and not give him a sense of security, because as soon as he secures his bases and his lines of supply, he will have an opportunity to use them to attack our brothers in different parts of the countries of the Islamic world. But we must prepare ourselves and be ready for this momentous event the best way we possibly can. We told them: 'Wait, we are readying ourselves.' Then we attacked the Americans.
"It is also true that we must take advantage of this country [Saudi Arabia] because it is the primary source of funds for most Jihad movements, and it has some degree of security and freedom of movement. But we must strike a balance between this and America's invasion of the Islamic world and its hobbling of the Jihad movement and even of other Islamic movements…" [1]
Another Strike in the U.S. Will Restore Sympathy for Al-Qa'ida
Al-Qa'ida members deny that Muslims have been killed in their bombings in Saudi Arabia, but recognize that the regime has managed, via the media, to convey such a message – which has damaged Al-Qa'ida's image.
In an interview in The Voice of Jihad, Louis Attiya Allah (an alias), [2] one of Al-Qa'ida's leading ideologues, stated: "Regarding the Al-Muhaya operation [the November 8, 2003 bombing in Riyadh], it can be claimed that the house of Salul [3] had some media success in portraying the battle as the killing of Muslims, and in inciting some against the Mujahideen. But this effect is temporary and will disappear if, for example, the Mujahideen strike another blow in America. Then sympathy will return to what it was in the past, and may even increase."
When asked whether the attacks in Saudi Arabia "caused Mujahideen shares to plummet" in Saudi society, he responded: "That may have happened, but we must look at the matter with a broader view, and place these operations in the framework of the war of the Mujahideen against the whole Western-American plan. At certain stages of this war, the Mujahideen can think they require these operations, despite their high price in terms of morale." [4]
Attacks are Against 'Crusaders,' Not the Saudi Regime
The statement that Al-Qa'ida members in Saudi Arabia are fighting the Americans and not the Saudi security forces has repeatedly appeared in The Voice of Jihad. In the interview, Abu Hajer said: "We have not carried out a single attack. All the operations that took place were defensive operations. The brothers try as much as possible to avoid clashes with the military and the security forces. Nevertheless, the government is escalating its war, and is trying to uproot me, uproot you, and uproot all Islamists… I have sworn to purge the Arabian Peninsula of the polytheists. We were born in this country, and we will fight in it against the Crusaders and against the Jews until we remove them or taste what was tasted by Hamza bin Abd Al-Muttalib [i.e. martyrdom]…" [5]
Voice of Jihad editorial writer Suleiman Al-Dosari went even further, calling on the Mujahideen to fight the Saudi security forces only when it was clearly self-defense: "We draw the attention of the Mujahideen to the strategy of the Sheikh of the Mujahideen, Abu Abdallah Osama bin Laden, and Sheikh Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a strategy on which many of the great Mujahideen have agreed in regard to fighting the enemy: Our number-one enemy is the Jews and the Christians, and we must make ourselves available and invest all our effort until we destroy them – and we are capable of doing this if Allah allows us to – because they are the main obstacle to the establishment of the Islamic state.
"… Notice the trick used by the [Arab] tyrants… [In their view] the blood of an American is equal to the blood of all the Muslims. They are willing to send hundreds [of Muslims] to their deaths in exchange for Americans enjoying security and well-being… We must be wary of this trick and avoid, as much as possible, confronting the state's armies and forces, so that we can deliver knock-out blows to the occupiers, Allah willing.
"This does not mean surrendering to those defending the Crusaders if they raid us; on the contrary, in this case we must resist with all our might and punish them so they turn their swords towards the Americans and fight in our ranks, refrain from confronting us, or stand against us and wait for what is anticipated for them [at our hands], by virtue of Allah and with His strength…" [6]
The Al-Haramayn Brigades: Focusing on Saudi Targets
Saudi Arabia does not lack for radical Islamists interested in filling the void left by Al-Qa'ida when it gave up direct attacks against the Saudi regime. One example is a new organization called The Al-Haramayn [Two Holy Places] Brigades, which has so far published two communiqués claiming to have carried out, on December 5, 2003, the shooting of a high-ranking Saudi security officer. Its first communiqué stated:
"The aim of this operation was, first and foremost, to let him [the Saudi officer] and every apostate tyrant know that he will not in any way be protected from the Mujahideen and their weapons, Allah willing… This operation was the first measure by the Brigades in the land of the two holy places, and part of its plan to purge it, as it was decided that the first stage would focus on the two groups of apostates:
"The first group is the leaders of the Crusader attack on the land of the two holy places, and it includes all those who cooperated with America in any way – by gathering information on the Mujahideen, by writing reports, by giving advice to the Crusaders, by raiding peaceful Muslims and intimidating them in their homes, by bringing their sons to the prisons, and by raiding the Mujahideen groups. The second group is the hangmen, which includes anyone who carries out torture in the prisons…
"Since our brothers in Al-Qa'ida are preoccupied with waging war on the Crusaders, and since it has become clear from their repeated communiqués that they are not attacking the internal security apparatus, we have decided to relieve them of this important [religious obligation] and to purge the land of the two holy places of the [Arab] agents, freeing [Al-Qa'ida] to purge it of the Crusaders…
"This is a message from The Al-Haramayn Brigades, [a message] based on a plan for 'cleansing the land of the two holy places,' directed at anyone whose hand is stained with the defilement of collaboration [with the Americans] or whose defiled hand has tortured any of the monotheists [i.e. the Islamists]: He must cease this immediately, or the hands of the monotheists will reach him…" [7]

Strike At America So America Cannot Strike at Saudi Arabia
The damage done to Al-Qa'ida's image by the Saudi bombings is not the only reason the organization prefers targeting "Crusaders" in Saudi Arabia or carrying out attacks in the West. According to Louis Attiya Allah,some Al-Qa'ida members claim that the Saudi regime's continued existence is in the organization's best interest, because it prevents the U.S. from striking hard at the Islamists in the Arabian Peninsula.
When asked why there had been no Jihad operations against the royal family, Attiya Allahsaid: "I don't know. Personally, I think attacking the heads of the regime will hasten its collapse. These decisions are discussed at Mujahideen meetings, and it is they who make this kind of decision, as ultimately these are military decisions.
"Perhaps the aim of the Mujahideen is to refrain from toppling the regime because the treasonous cover provided by the Saudi regime prevents America from striking a powerful blow to the entire country. That is one of the ideas that led the Mujahideen [to prefer] first of all neutralizing America, or paralyzing it, and only afterward turning to this regime and its ilk. I say this, even though I maintain that eliminating some members of the regime would be very useful and would make things easier for the Mujahideen without causing the regime's downfall."
Attiya Allah also discussed what might happen in the region were the Saudi regime to collapse. When asked whether "the Americans would leave us alone if the zero hour arrives and the regime of the House of Salul is removed," Attiya Allah responded:
"No, they would not leave us alone. As a first step, they would try to secure the oil fields, in accordance with an old plan. They would not stand idly by. But the question is whether they would be able to do this in the event that the regime completely collapses and anarchy prevails. I doubt this very much. If they become more and more entangled in the Iraqi quagmire, and if we strike painful blows in America, those blows will deprive them of their ability to focus on [Saudi Arabia]… What arouses real concern is the acts of their allies the Shiites in the event of the collapse [of the Saudi regime]. This would be an extremely grave situation requiring great thought and preparation of alternatives by the Mujadiheen."
Also in the interview, Attiya Allah explained why Al-Qa'ida was more concerned about the U.S. than about the Saudi regime: "The Mujahideen are waging a great ongoing war with the masters [the Americans], and the slaves [the Saudis] have no place in this battle. The slaps and kicks that harm the slave during the Mujahideen's battle against its master are of no consequence in light of his fate when his master is defeated… The Mujahideen are warring with the masters, but we may soon see a little more attention directed toward these slaves…" [8]
Al-Qa'ida's Political Program
In the interview, The Voice of Jihad asked Louis Attiya Allah how he responded to those who argued that Al-Qa'ida had no comprehensive political program. He said, "Does [Saudi Crown Prince] Abdallah bin Abd Al-Aziz, for example, have a political program, apart from being an agent and slave of the Americans? Do any of the existing regimesin the Islamic world have a genuine political program?… If you mean a political program compatible with the existing world order, I say to you that yes, Al-Qa'ida has no political program compatible with the existing world order, simply because the existing world order does not recognize us as an independent Islamic state, and forces us to be its satellite, to adapt ourselves to its secular laws and to be subjugated to its military rule.
"Al-Qa'ida is absolutely opposed to this, and states: The world order must be removed from the region and defeated, first of all militarily. Then, the Islamic state must be reestablished, in accordance with the Islamic regime. This means that we will control our fate, rule over ourselves, and control our resources. More generally, we will rebuild our lives according to our foundations and our principles. The experience [of an Islamic state] is real, and it existed 1,300 years ago. The peoples of the East ruled themselves and lived according to their own rules long before the West was in the region. There is nothing to prevent the revival of these rules, which are based on the Koran and the Sunna…
"No political program has a chance of succeeding if we do not defeat the West, militarily and culturally, and remove it from Muslim countries. Then, it will not be difficult for the nation, with the help of its tremendous resources, to rebuild life according to religious Islamic principles. We will become the masters of the world, as the world's economic fate depends on us because we have the resources the world needs and all the elements of controlling the world are in our hands. What we are lacking is to live free and to rule ourselves by ourselves, cut off from the West and its agents."
'Arab Nation States Have Neither a Right to Exist Nor a Popular Base'
Attiya Allah also spoke of the fate Al-Qa'ida has planned for the Arab countries: "The [Arab] nation-states… are a Western model that the West created to allow it to build up its general colonialist plan for the Islamic East. These countries have no religious foundation, and have neither a right to exist nor a popular base. They were forced upon the Muslim peoples, and their survival is linked to the Western forces that created them. Therefore, the general aim of the Jihad and the Mujahideen is to strike at the foundations and infrastructure of the Western colonialist program or at the so-called world order – or, to put it bluntly, to defeat Crusaders in the battle that has been going on for over a century. Their defeat means, simply, the elimination of all forms of nation-states, such that all that remains is the natural existence familiar to Islam – the regional entity under the great Islamic state.

The Jihad Movement Will Not Stop at Any Arab Border
"Expelling the colonialists from the Muslim lands means simply eradicating the borders and all types of nation-states created by the West. The significance of this is that when the Jihad goes into action in Iraq, for example, it will not stop at the colonialist borders; it will not stop in Jordan and recognize it as an entity, because in Islamic concepts this country called Jordan has no [right to] exist. The Jihad movement in the Arabian Peninsula will not be stopped by the borders of the so-called Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, because the entity called by this name is an artificial entity that has no religious foundation. There is no religious consideration that prevents, for example, the transfer of Jihad outside this entity to Yemen or to the countries called the Gulf States. All these types of nation-states have no significance, and they have no [religious] protection preventing their removal when the Jihad goes into action.
"Igniting the fire in the Arabian Peninsula is expected to be one of the keys to the great change, because the Arabian Peninsula is the heart, and any change in the Arabian Peninsula affects the other parts of the Islamic body."
'The More Martyrs' Blood Shed, the Greater the Light of Jihad'
"Even if we assume that, Allah willing, the sparking of conflicts will lead to painful results in the short term and perhaps in the intermediate term, in the long term the changes happening here will be the key to the cleansing of the entire Islamic world, to ridding ourselves of the colonialists, and to removing the Crusaders – so that we can then prepare for the great conflicts with them in the battles to come, including the decisive war with the Byzantines of which the Prophet spoke… [9]
"The main enemies of the nation, the Byzantines, will not come to their end until Judgment Day, and therefore there is no point in talking of stopping the battle… The most important thing is that the Mujahideen will safeguard the burning ember of Jihad. The more martyrs' blood is shed for the sake of this ember, the greater its light; it will burn the enemies more quickly and victory will draw near, Allah willing…" [10]

[1] The Voice of Jihad, Nos. 1 and 2, Sha'ban 1424 (October 2003).
[2] Louis Attiya Allah is the alias of a Saudi who is considered a leading Al-Qa'ida ideologue. His writings have appeared on the Internet since September 11, and since the killing of Sheikh Yousef Al-'Ayyiri, Attiya Allah is probably the most popular of Al-Qa'ida's ideologues.
[3] A highly derogatory term used by Islamists for the Saudi royal family, the house of Saud. The term is derived from Abdallah bin Ubay ibn Salul, consideredin Islam to be the leader of the hypocrites.
[4] The Voice of Jihad, No. 6, Shawwal 1424 (early December 2003).
[5] The Voice of Jihad, Nos. 1 and 2, Sha'ban 1424 (October 2003).
[6] The Voice of Jihad, No. 2, Sha'ban 1424 (October 2003).
[8] The Voice of Jihad, No. 6, Shawwal 1424 (early December, 2003).
[9] A reference to the war against the Christians, termed in this context "Byzantines" following a Hadith that is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad regarding the future battle. See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 447.
[10] The Voice of Jihad, No. 6, Shawwal 1424 (early December 2003).  


Sunday, July 18, 2004

Something Funny To End or Start The Week

In the spirit of Nutwatch 2004  here's something
Truly Hilarious to end another grim week of beheadings and insane Islamists with nukes


Another beheading video from the religion of peace--Paul Johnson Murdered

Here's another beheading video from followers of the religion of peace--
Love From Islamists or


It’s Time To Take Off The Gloves

by Ray Starmann
After the end of the first Gulf War in 1991, I was stopped by a resident of Damman, Saudi Arabia. He looked at me and remarked, “We thought America was a weak country, but you are strong, very strong indeed.” While temporarily vanquishing the ghosts of Vietnam, the Gulf War also showed our enemies and friends across the world that an angered America was a lethal foe in the arena of war. To the Saudis and the other Arab peoples, the U.S. military was once again the bad boy on the block. In two rounds, we had KO’d the local Iraqi bully into a bleeding, retreating, crying pulp.
Now, almost three years since 9/11 and over a year since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States appears more as a dithering, withering opponent than a mighty superpower. As we battle a re-burgeoning Taliban in Afghanistan, fight through a nebulous abyss in Iraq, and tangle with radical Islamic maniacs in two dozen nations, we must ask ourselves the following question: Why are we obsessed with fighting a world war by politically correct rules that would make the Marquis of Queensbury blush?
The time has come to take off the gloves and win this war.We must first adjust our philosophy. The War on Terror is not a conflict limited to one area. It is a world war. It is also total war.
 Our enemies are currently waging total war against us. It is time we waged total war against them. While Al Qaeda guerillas kidnap and behead our citizens in Saudi Arabia, we are still afraid to mutter that terrible “C” word, crusade. To borrow a line from Ike, this is also a “Great Crusade” and if the PC crowd can’t deal with it, that’s too damn bad.
 The War on Terror is a clash of civilizations. Our free republic, allied with the civilizations of Western European democracy are continuing a fight started over a thousand years ago. Our Muslim enemies are the embodiment of evil. They seek to kill any who do not conform to their ideas of a twisted, religious theocracy. If they were to win, the world would be plunged into a new, barbaric, dark age for a millennium. The president and many other leaders seem unwilling to label the War on Terror as a religious war. Our enemies know it is. We know it too, but are unwilling to admit it, on the grounds of insulting someone, somewhere. This is a war of Muslim extremists against Judeo-Christian civilization. Labeling it any other way would be ludicrous.President Bush has remarked on more than one occasion that the War on Terror may last years, perhaps a decade or longer. I believe this theory is based on the fact that the War on Terror is still being viewed as largely a conflict that will be won by small police actions, special operations and HUMINT investigations. Certainly, they have a role to play, but the war on terror must be won by the heart of our conventional military forces.
For it is only with the combat power of our conventional forces that victory can be assured. The “let’s bring ‘em to justice” mentality must be completely abandoned. There are no more courts, lawsuits or lawyers for this enemy. There is only a violent death awaiting them at the hands of the U.S. military. We have consistently fought the War on Terror with the conservatism of a Montgomery and the might of Mr. Bill.
In Afghanistan, we let Bin Laden and his minions escape the caves of Tora Bora because we were afraid to take the fight to him in that rugged terrain. Instead, we had the Afghans fight our battle and in Afghan style, a deal was made and the emissary of evil fled. Fallujah and the Sunni Triangle still remains a bastion of terrorism and Muslim extremism. Worst of all, the Iraqis know we lost the Battle of Fallujah. We justified reasons for retreating and abandoned the area after repeatedly promising to wipe out the insurgents. In the long, glorious history of the U.S. Marine Corps this is nothing less than a total disgrace.
Fallujah is not going to go away until we deal a death knell to it. We must give all women and children 24 hours to evacuate the city, than finally seize it. Our so-called “Shock and Awe” air campaign in Iraq looked more like a giant swatting flies. More concerned with hurting one lone civilian than striking terror into the hearts of the enemy, the air campaign appeared to be orchestrated by JAG lawyers more worried about violating international law. A round-the-clock, two week long air campaign using thousands of planes would have done the job. A follow-on invasion force of 300,000 to 500,000 troops was also needed. During World War II, the Nazi Werwolf (guerilla) movement never took hold in Bavaria for the following key reasons: We invaded the country with a gigantic force, we moved quickly and violently, and our bombing campaign also terrified the local population into submission.
After securing Afghanistan and Iraq, we must finally deal with Syria and Iran. We must launch full-scale invasions of both countries and take down two regimes that have spread terrorism for 25 years. If necessary, we may also have to occupy Saudi Arabia. This can only be accomplished with a much larger military.To accomplish this, the U.S. Army must be expanded to at least twenty active-duty divisions. The Pentagon Powerpoint magicians still portray a successful, healthy volunteer Army. Behind the smoke and mirrors is a basic fact; the volunteer Army is dying. Young people are not signing up in droves. Therefore, there is only one solution. We must begin a draft. It’s time to get the whole nation involved in the War on Terror. The draft must include people of all classes, from all walks of society. We must return to an Army that represents the whole nation, not just the lower and middle classes.
The Reserves and National Guard must stop being utilized as active-duty troops. They should be used for homeland security. Particularly, the National Guard should be placed on the Mexican border with the mission of halting illegal alien traffic into the country. Civilians should also become involved in various homeland security capacities.We must also amend the ridiculous screening rules at airports. Security screeners must focus on the people who are trying to kill us: people from Middle Eastern countries and other nations which are predominantly Muslim.
The Italian grandmother from Chicago, the Texas man with the Charlie Daniels belt buckle, the minister from Wisconsin are probably not terrorists. Stop spending time and resources doing lengthy searches on them. Finally, as we fight this war, we must remember the words of William Shakespeare, written almost 500 years ago.“Arm yourselves and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict, for it is better for us to perish in battle, than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar.” Ray Starmann is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at Send Feedback responses to


Italy is on alert

This from
Internet Haganah who (by the way) has a database of more than 225 Islamist sites you can monitor.
Italian intelligence is taking recent Al Qaeda threats addressed against Italy extremely seriously. Intelligence reports a rise in activity concerning websites connected with the July 15 deadline set by Bin Laden for Westerners to leave Iraq. Based on prior analysis of the Saudi sheik's behavioural patterns intelligence believe the message is a go-ahead for jihad factions to act. The aim is hence to create expectation which translates into generalised panic and a high onus on security forces. The threat according to intelligence is real and has to be taken seriously. There is no clean cut idea as to what the threats refer to, intelligence are merely aware of a general Al Qaeda threat of a grand attack against the infidels. Targets are mush the same as they have always been: European capitals - including Rome, especially after the fall of what many considered as being the Vatican's "protective shield", ill spent as a result of the meeting between the Pope and George Bush -, soldiers in Iraq, Western concerns worldwide as well as Islamic countries with high western tourist influx. Bin Laden has always targeted moderate Arab or Islamic countries in an attempt to swell the tide of fundamentalist unrest. (AGI) - 171424 LUG 04


Time For A Wake Up Call--What Are you going to Do?

William's note: This is part 2 of the what are you going to do now? post--
By William Webb
In June 2003, the Islamic fundamentalist web site Al Muhajiroun, supported by Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian who is founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the U.K.-based Islamic Liberation Party that has many followers in the United States, ran an article that outlined both the motivation and development of the movement. It is a strategic blueprint for insurgency and calls for a “fifth column.” According to the author, the movement developed and will:
9. “Insha'Allah formulate a fifth column Tabour Khaamiss in society.10. The fifth column will Insha'Allah be in a position to get support from the people of power i.e. Muslim forces Al-Ansaar or to lead the Islamic revolution Al-Thaworah Al-Islamiyya in order to establish the task i.e. Al-Khilafah The Islamic State to dominate the world by Islam.”[i]
While many Muslim groups, particularly in America, vehemently deny any suggestion of an organized insurgency, the general idea of a worldwide Islamic renewal sparked by a “Fifth Column” comprised of Muslim immigrants is widely supported throughout the Islamic world.
Abu Basir, a prominent Muslim scholar said that immigration by Muslims to Western “infidel countries,” is allowed, “in order to enforce the Muslims and weaken the infidels. One of the goals of immigration is the revival of the duty of jihad and enforcement of the power over the infidels. Immigration and jihad go together. One is the consequence of the other and dependent upon it. The continuance of the one is dependent on the continuance of the other.”[ii]
Wealthy patrons and Islamic states fund the global jihad. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria pump billions into the cause, some of it going directly into weapons and operational support for terrorist groups around the world.
 Equally threatening is the staggering amount of money Saudi Arabia pumps into dawa, or inviting others to Islam, within the United States and other Western countries. Dawa is expected of all Muslims and is no different than proclaiming one’s Christianity and inviting others to become Christians.
However this government-supported religious effort controls more than 80 percent of the mosques within America, some of which are known to feature regular, anti-American sermons, controls the Islamic preachers and teachers in the U.S. military and prisons, and controls a multi-million-dollar public relations project that portrays all Muslims as gentle, peace-loving people while sponsoring groups that spew hatred, intolerance, and violence.
 Saudi Arabia exports Wahhabism, a virulently intolerant form of Islam that has brought the world Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers, and is the fuel for the next great strike planned against the United States: a nuclear or biological event aimed at a major city and crippling the American economy.
The hypocrisy of many in the Western media, academic, and governmental communities, and among activist organizations like the ACLU regarding the actions of the Saudi government is staggering and inexcusable. Could you imagine the uproar if President George W. Bush decided to spend billions to export evangelical Christianity to the world?
 Now, imagine he decided to support an Old Testament-offshoot that justified mass killing in the name of Jehovah. Why is the outrage over Saudi Arabia’s infiltration of America confined to Washington think tanks, American Shia Muslim groups, and conservative Christian evangelists?
You are placed at risk due to Western freedoms of religion and expression, as future Mohamed Attas plan their ghastly attacks on you with barely an inconvenience. Of course the Saudis do not allow ANY religion other than Islam to be practiced in their country, as Allah through Mohammed has forbidden it.
A Pentagon briefing delivered by Rand Corporation analyst Laurent Murawiec that was quickly dismissed by most of official Washington laid out the case fairly bluntly: “The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader,” Murawiec stated.
“Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies…  A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent in the Middle East.”[iii]
You only need to read former CIA operative and middle east expert Robert Baer’s book, Sleeping With The Devil, to understand the money trail from inside the Beltway to Riyadh and to understand why Mr. Murawiec’s briefing wasn’t well received in official Washington circles.
Syria is home to the majority of the Middle Eastern terrorist groups and spends billions to equip and train them. Foreign intelligence suggests that senior Iraqi leadership escaped to Syria at the beginning of the 2003 war. More ominously, intelligence sources suggest weapons of mass destruction made their way from Iraq to, or through, Syria in the run-up to the 2003 war with Iraq.
 Iran started the war against the West in 1979 at the start of the revolution there when Iranian students captured the American embassy. Iran is a well-known, worldwide supporter of terror and insurgency and is currently working with Al-Qaida and other terror groups. Iran is currently very close to having the capabilities necessary to produce nuclear weapons. Before September 11, the Iranians were responsible for more American deaths by terrorism than any other nation.
Pakistan is the current sole possessor of the Islamic nuclear capability with an estimated 35-60 weapons. Despite President Musharaff’s demonstrated support for the U.S. war on terror, Pakistan has an army and intelligence service overflowing with Islamists. Recently, the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Committee, Gen. Mohammed Aziz Khan said, “America is the No. 1 enemy of the Muslim world and is conspiring against Muslim nations all over the world.”
How much danger do you really face? Who are these terrorists and how do they operate? Which states are supporting them? What is the government doing to protect you? What should the government do to protect you? How much infringement on your personal liberties are you willing to endure to be safe? What can you do to protect yourself and your family? How safe do you want to be? These crucial issues and other questions are the subject matter of this book.
To date, the war on terror has seen some victories. These victories have been made possible by the “Bush Doctrine,” which states that America strike first to destroy groups or states that threaten the nation. It is a realistic, pragmatic doctrine for an extremely dangerous world. It is also controversial due to its critics’ concern over potential misuses.
 Since September 11 there have been military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the hint of future actions to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea. Top Al-Qaida and other terrorist leaders now sit behind bars. Terrorist financing is tracked and accounts frozen worldwide. Years of political correctness, ineptitude, and out-to-lunch legalism are being challenged by reorganizations at the FBI and CIA. The Department of Homeland Security was created and has sent billions to the states and local first-responder communities
In the months following September 11, patriotism, righteous anger and a sense of community came back into fashion. Like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Muslim terrorists had awakened a sleeping giant. American and Western resources would soon eradicate the threat and all peace-loving peoples could get back to living the extraordinarily good lives they enjoy courtesy of Western democracy and capitalism.
There is only one problem. None of us can go back to the way things were, because things will never be the same again. You ignore this lesson at great risk.
 You are a target of a religiously inspired enemy who hates you and everything you represent. A CIA report and a State Department warning made public in June 2003, flatly stated that Al-Qaida and related groups seek and plan to use chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons against civilians in deadly strikes. 
So, how safe do you want to be?
 If you are a member of a Western democracy or any non-fundamentalist Muslim living in the world, this question is central to your future. While the history of America’s response to global, Muslim-led terrorism and religious insurgency continues to unfold, the unsettling reality is that you are only minimally safer now than you were before September 11.
The reasons you remain minimally safer are many. For one, the sheer ways to commit terrorist acts are endless and the resources available to combat them are finite. There is simply no way to guarantee you will be completely safe.
If you are an American, you live in a vast country with more than 7,500 miles of borders and 95,000 miles of coastline. There are hundreds of towns and cities and thousands of municipalities. The potential target list within each location is staggering.  Now add on the daily flow of the hundreds of ships arriving in U.S. ports, thousands of airline flights, and tens-of-thousands of trucks on the roads and you begin to see both the enormity of the task at hand, as well as and the impossibility of making you completely safe.
Threats and responses are subject to prioritization. Priorities are set by the government, which brings with it the reality of politics, political correctness, and the inefficiencies of government bureaucracies. Chapter nine examines the government response to terrorism to-date and explains why you are only minimally safer than you were on Monday, September 10, 2001.
As Lou Scanlon, Director of Homeland Security for the city of San Diego told me in an interview, “Common sense tells you that prevention is really our big gap in the war on terror. We must be able to identify and investigate to prevent terrorist acts before they occur. All the clamor over first-responder inadequacies is for the after-event response. It does not make you safer. Only identifying, investigation, and prevention makes you safe.”[iv]
It is with this common-sense reality that the untidiness of politics in a democracy is there for everyone to see. In each area that you remain minimally safer, there is a political struggle being waged and you must decide: How safe do you want to be? More importantly, you must force the politicians to take action.
You are only minimally safer flying now than you were before September 11.
The bottom line is that Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s personal biases, the “civil liberties” concerns of the ACLU and certain conservative groups, the discrimination complaints of Muslim political groups, and the Bush administration’s acquiescence have determined that your safety is less important than potentially offending a Muslim or a member of a predominately Muslim country. While CAPSII, a computerized profiling system for airline passengers, is scheduled for implementation in 2004, it is a watered down version thanks to the efforts of Secretary Mineta and others.
The lack of physical airport security was highlighted by a well-publicized breach of Kennedy International by a fishing boat in 2003, and the problems with cargo was probably best exemplified by the moron who air-freighted himself across the country in September 2003.
Add to this pressure from the airlines themselves for the government to speed up both passenger and baggage screening, complaints from the travel industry concerning effective visa screening from predominately-Muslim countries, and complaints from air travelers who put personal convenience above safety, and you have the makings of another terrorist air disaster.
You are minimally safer now because the United States has no control over its borders.  Hispanic groups, immigration lawyers, the ACLU, other minority political activists, university employees, and politics from both sides of the aisle have determined that votes from America’s largest ethnic minority—Hispanics—are more important than your safety. Millions of people cross the southern border of the United States illegally each year. The government does little to prosecute these swarm of illegals, simply because it has become politically expedient not to make waves.
According to a recent news release from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR, William T. Veal, the chief Border Patrol agent for the San Diego sector, recently sent a memo to his employees stating that they were to cease nearly all interior border-enforcement operations.
This came as a result of Mexican government protests about illegals being arrested by Border Patrol agents as they approached a Mexican consulate in the U.S. in order to obtain Mexican identity documents, known as the matricula consular cards, which ousted California Governor Gray Davis deemed legitimate documents for illegal aliens to be granted state drivers licenses.
“Simply put, the chief Border Patrol officer in one of the areas of the country with the highest levels of illegal immigration has ordered his agents not to do their jobs,” charged Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “He has essentially declared San Diego a safe haven for illegal immigrants who successfully elude his agents stationed at the border, or who, like several of the September 11 terrorists, arrived in San Diego by other means.
“It is ironic that when American citizens demand that the Border Patrol enforce our immigration laws, more often than not, their pleas go unheeded,” noted Stein. “However, when illegal aliens and the Mexican government complain about the Border Patrol doing its job, suddenly the top brass springs into action and establishes policies designed to give illegal aliens a sense of comfort and security.
“In addition to the billions of dollars American taxpayers are shelling out to provide services to millions of illegal aliens, they are now spending billions on a law enforcement agency that has adopted a law enforcement strategy that prevents them from looking for law-breakers in precisely the places they are likely to be found,” said Stein.[v]
Now, along with these, come terrorists to shoot, bomb, and gas you. 
Of course our northern borders are just as porous, even though the numbers crossing illegally are much less. Had it not been for the efforts of an alert customs agent in Port Washington, Ahmed Rassam would have detonated an enormous bomb at Los Angeles International airport during the millennium celebrations.
A confidential Canadian report said that international terrorist groups were exploiting Canada’s lax immigration and border control system. More than 50 known terrorist groups were said to be in operating in Canada, the report said.
As Michelle Malkin recognized in her book, Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals And Other Foreign Menaces To Our Shores,  “Immigration policy must be treated as a national security issue.”[vi]
Malkin, a first generation daughter of Filipino immigrants, calls for several common-sense policy decisions: A targeted visa moratorium from countries known to support and supply terrorists, scrapping visa-free travel, fingerprinting and profiling at seaports and airports, ending the INS’ “catch and release” policy that allows illegals caught entering unlawfully to escape prosecution, abolishing the Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), and Board of Immigration Appeals  (BIA), and physically protecting our borders by with the military if necessary.
Again, you must decide whether immigration policy should be treated as a national security issue and whether the government should finally be forced to uphold its own immigration laws. Because it is a fact that today we are truly being invaded, and many of the invaders mean to do you harm.
You are minimally safer now because our predictive intelligence capability is very limited in the United States.
One of our most contentious and controversial issues in the war on terror deals with our predictive intelligence capability. The controversy surrounds the extent to which the government should conduct surveillance on you or potential terrorists, particularly within  the United States, to combat terrorism.
Think of Ed Scanlon’s statement: “We must be able to identify and investigate terrorist acts before they occur.”
This is the essence of your safety—identifying, investigating, preventing—anything else is about counting casualties and cleaning up the rubble. This is a basic truth whether you’re a police officer, an FBI agent, a CIA operative, an NSA analyst, or a military commander.
Of course none of the billions of your tax dollars that go to the CIA, NSA, or military goes towards surveillance of terrorist threats inside the United States.
The failures of our the U.S. intelligence apparatus and supporting agencies like the INS, customs, and the FBI in preventing the September 11 attacks are well-documented. But the fact remains that we have done little to improve our predictive intelligence capability in the United States. And politics, political correctness, and the rightful debate concerning civil liberties versus the reality of what it takes to carry on effective identification of potential terrorists who live and work among us keeps us minimally safer today.
Among the many things the government hasn’t done to improve its predictive intelligence capability (covered in Chapter 9) are:
§        Not creating a data mining system like TIA, the politically maligned Terrorist Information Awareness system, which would search for patterns in trillions of transactions and flag suspicious activity, identify possible terrorist activity, and allow authorities to investigate.
§      Not mandating a national ID card—beyond the ones you already carry in your wallet (your Social Security card and your state’s driver’s license).
§      Not creating an internal intelligence agency like Britain’s MI5 that would have the responsibility for domestic U.S counterintelligence and which should be able to get raw intelligence inputs from NSA.
§      Not changing the FBI mission back into law enforcement only.
Fighting the direct war against the terrorists and their patrons will continue to be expensive, difficult, and will progress more slowly than many believe prudent. Let us hope it does not take an even more savage and deadly terrorist strike to make correct choices that will protect us.
Fighting the indirect war, our response to the religious insurgency, is even more problematic. At the very heart of our response, lie values we uphold and cherish. These core values—freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom to be secure in our homes—distinguish Western democracies from the rest of the world. We are free. September 11, 2001 has shown us that we must fight to remain free.
So, where do we draw the line against religious insurgency in a society that expounds freedom of religion? How do we respond to hateful and inciting thoughts and ideas in a country that guarantees all citizens the right to express themselves any way they choose? 
First of all, you should listen to moderate Muslims and other people with ties to the Middle East and understand that terrorism and the fundamentalist insurgency is a fringe element, and most Muslims who come to the United States to live are peace-loving people, interested in building better lives for themselves in this country, not destroying it. The Islam of the majority of these Muslim-Americans is not the extremist religion of the truly fringe sects that threaten us all.
Muslims, like Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, and all the other religious groups making up the panoply of world belief have the right to serve their God in any way their heart leads. This is an American right. Religious freedom was one of the prime motivations of our first settlers. The right to serve your God of choice or no God at all must remain inviolable. Likewise the freedom to proselytize, without coercion or violence, is also an understood absolute.
 But as I shall discuss in Chapter 13, there is no evidence from any recorded writings or speeches of America’s founders that religious freedom includes the right to fly jets through buildings, blow up innocent people, terrorize those who disagree with you, or try to forcefully impose your religious views upon the government and the citizenry.
The faithful worshipping in a mosque, temple, church, or any other religious building, give up their absolute freedom of religion when rhetoric turns to violent actions.
You have a personal responsibility to make authorities aware of potentially violent situations. Likewise you must decide whether the government should monitor dangerous groups that hide behind religious freedom.
There is also no evidence that America’s founders envisioned another country funding a religious insurgency within the United States. You must decide whether the Saudi government’s billion-dollar campaign to spread Wahhabi-Islam contributes to your safety and the type of America you wish to live in. Then you must take action. 
Like it or not, you are now a target of well-organized, well-financed, fanatical, and utterly merciless Muslim terrorists, a participant in a war waged on two fronts 
Yyou must take action before it is too late.

[i] Ibid, June 2003

[ii] Abd al-Mun’im Mustafa Halimah Abu Basir, “Al-Hijrah, masa’il wa-ahkam,” Immigration: Questions and Rulings, December 9, 2001, available in pamphlet and online at

[iii] “Thomas E Ricks, “Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies, The Washington Post, August 6, 2002

[iv] Interview with Lou Scanlon and other members of  San Diego Police Department, April 21, 2003

[v] FAIR Press Release, “ Border Patrol Backs Down on Enforcement Policy Under Pressure From Mexico Who Calls the Shots on U.S. Immigration Policy? Asks FAIR”  August 15, 2003

[vi] Michelle Malkin, “Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, CriminalsAnd Other Foreign Menaces To Our Shores,”  page xiii, Regnery Publishing, Inc, New York 2002

[vii]Interview with Sheikh Yussuf Al-Qaradhawi, Al-Jazeera Television (Qatar), September 16, 2001.

[viii] IBID


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?