posted on June 30, 2007 09:28:47 PM new
Yep, as CC as said more than once and as the 'pretty boy john' keeps saying....there is no 'war on terrorism'. It's just a 'bumper sticker' game.
Just bury your heads in the sand and you too can PRETEND that terrorism is just something this administration uses to 'scare' people. It doesn't really exist. It really can't happen here. We don't need to be fighting these sickos in Iraq or Africa...or anywhere else for that matter. It's just a figment of our imaginations.
===========================
'Allah, Allah!'...
SECOND DAY OF TERROR...
4X4 BOMB: Jeep rams into Glasgow Terminal...
'WE ARE ENTERING THE ERA OF THE CAR BOMB'...
UK-wide hunt for al-Qaida cell...
London mayor defends Muslims... [more, like our liberals here who LIVE in DENIAL.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on June 30, 2007 11:36:46 PM new
Our wacko left would be SCREAMING bloody murder if the US had the cameras all over most streets that London does.
But guess what? Notice how quickly they've captured the suspects.
We've been lucky in that we've had an administration that has PREVENTED the attacks some have tried here BEFORE they took place.
That's never given much recognition from the liberal Bush haters though. But some do notice the difference between the many attacks the UK has recently gone through....and how the US hasn't. There's a REASON for that. It's this administration doing it's JOB to prevent them....arrest them BEFORE they can carry out their murderous deeds. Even while the wacko's scream about the terrorists 'civil rights' being violated.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 30, 2007 11:38 PM ]
posted on July 1, 2007 04:21:52 AM new
Dear stupid, please show proof that anyone in here has posted that terrorism doesn't exist.
BTW, it was HUMAN BEINGS who discovered the car, NOT cameras.
I know YOU are only interested in punishing the perpetrators but HUMAN BEINGS, NOT cameras, saved lives.
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 1, 2007 04:36 AM ]
posted on July 1, 2007 07:43:39 AM new
"Yep, as CC as said more than once and as the 'pretty boy john' keeps saying....there is no 'war on terrorism'."
posted on July 1, 2007 02:36:36 PM new
Really CC? Because you said something VERY similar when the discussion was either about edwards making the claim there was no war on terrorism - it's only a 'slogan'.....or in a thread where the discussion was about the dem party wanting to change ALL MSN references from their party members so that it was no longer referred to as such by any of them.
BUT hey, if you're saying you DO see it as 'our war on terrorists/terrorism'......then I'm more than happy to be corrected. Because then, at least, you are dealing with THAT very REAL situation when so many others in are total denial about it.
I have taken from more than one of your posts that you don't support this war at all and that it's a threat being made up/enlarged beyond reason, to scare the public.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 1, 2007 09:21:22 PM new
No, Linda. I have never commented on the "War on Terror." You are right that I am totally repulsed by this war and how we were manipulated into it. I do acknowledge terrorism, the increased danger of attacks in American and around the world and the need for vigilance and security measures. I abhor the phrase "War on Terror" which was and still is used as a tool to instill fear in Americans and propel us into this abominable war. To imply that the war in Iraq, if won (and I don't know how that would happen), would end terrorism is absolute malarky. If the administration really believes that, they are idiots. If they don't believe it but hope to convince the American people of this, they are liars and war mongers. Either way, it stinks.
posted on July 2, 2007 01:56:32 AM new
posted on July 1, 2007 09:21:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Linda. I have never commented on the "War on Terror."
Well...how funny that I got that FALSE impression from you anyway.
You are right that I am totally repulsed by this war and how we were manipulated into it.
I know. All those dems, along with the republicans who were telling us since the early clinton administration years the exact same thing. And even in THIS administration the dems telling us how we needed to take immediate action. Gosh....ALL those dems in total agreement that we needed to go to war. Who would have thunk. LOL
I do acknowledge terrorism, the increased danger of attacks in American and around the world and the need for vigilance and security measures.
But calling it what it is...somehow 'offends' you and other liberals - calling it exactly what it is is wrong, huh. LOL
I abhor the phrase "War on Terror" which was and still is used as a tool to instill fear in Americans and propel us into this abominable war.
Again, how odd that I'd 'guess' your position since you SAY you never said this before. Boy MY crystal ball must be working REAL well....since it IS EXACTLY your position - exactly what I said I KNOW you've stated before.
To imply that the war in Iraq, if won (and I don't know how that would happen), would end terrorism is absolute malarky.
Gee, I've NEVER read anyone making THAT statement. Was it another crazy 'lets pretend there is no 'war on terrorists' liberal?
If the administration really believes that, they are idiots. If they don't believe it but hope to convince the American people of this, they are liars and war mongers. Either way, it stinks.
Thanks for admitting that while you SAY you never said any such thing before....comfirming that it IS your position. So my statement WAS true.
funny thing. LOL LOL LOL
===============================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 2, 2007 02:18:40 AM new
And there are other, much better lists to be found on the internet where DEMS in the Bush admin. were quoted by larger numbers....kerry included....pushing this president to act MORE quickly on Iraq. LOL
But this will suffice for now. The liberals think they can have it both ways.....vote for the WAR, and to this DAY not vote to stop funding it. COWARDS who speak out of both sides of their mouths. "We're against the war but we're going to keep funding it - because WE don't have the GUTS to take responsibility for the aftermath SLAUGHTER that we saw in VN - so we can't find the courage to just quit lying to the voters and stop funding it, liberals," LOL LOLOL
==========
While it's my opinion that NEITHER administration NOR their Presidents LIED to us about the threat saddam remained to the WORLD.....the dems want to ONLY blame this administration. How FUNNY but how telling about their MORALS and their LACK of ethics on such a GRAVELY important issue to US security. tsk tsk tsk
=======================
If Bush lied, so did Democrats!
Doug Hagin
November 28, 2005
"Bush lied!" "Bush misled us!" "The President withheld intelligence!" We have heard these particular statements from Democrat politicians pretty much non-stop in recent months.
linda's note: now, it's been YEARS they've been throwing these LIES out, over and over and over.
These Democrats are desirous of leading Americans to believe that they only voted to approve the invasion of Iraq because President Bush duped them.
Naturally, the followers of Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi are only too willing to buy the lies the Democrats are spreading. Yes, yes, I did say lies. Frankly, the lies being told about the lead-up to the Iraq War, and the vote to approve it, are coming directly from the Democrats, not the White House!
As they have tried to placate their Leftist base, by accusing President Bush of misleading them to support the Iraq invasion, they have stopped supporting our troops, as they deserve to be supported. Yes, that is a harsh charge to level, but it is a just charge as well. The fact is this, for all their bluster about being solidly behind our armed forces, the Democrats and those who are parroting their false claims of being misled are undercutting our troops!
The Democrats cannot at once claim to support the military and blast their mission as one based on lies. The cold fact is this, it is the political left, which is talking of cutting, and running (Rep. Murtha), it is the political left, which has accused our troops of torture and targeting civilians (Dennis Kucinish). It is the left, which has called our troops the problem (Ted Kennedy). Guess what, that AIN'T supporting the troops!
So let us look at the statements of these poor, misled Democrats BEFORE the Iraq invasion.
Let us recall their own words, their declarations about Saddam, WMD, and Iraq as a threat to America. While we take this trip down memory lane, let us recall the intelligence they saw was exactly the same as the president saw. Then let us decide if the Democrats were misled then, or are just trying to appease their increasingly Leftist base now.
What did John Kerry say? "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Congressional Record, October 9, 2002
Hmmm, is this the same John Kerry who repeatedly called the Iraq war the wrong war at the wrong time?
How about Senator Clinton? "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.
Did she lie about WMD? If President Bush is a liar, then Senator Clinton is as well.
Let us hear what Charles Schummer said about the threat of Iraq. "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."
Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
Was he misleading himself into voting for the war? Did he lie for oil as President Bush has been accused of?
What of Senator Jay Rockefeller? What did he say about Iraq before Selective Memory Syndrome, a common Leftist malady struck? "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."
Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
How about failed lifeguard Ted Kennedy? What did he think about Saddam? "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002
Democratic Senator Chris Dodd had this to say. "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."
Congressional Record, October 8, 2002
Finally let me close with the words of President Bill Clinton! "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
"[Let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Remarks at the White House, December 16, 1998
Was Bill Clinton helping Bush mislead Democrats with these words? Was he plotting to assist George W. Bush in misleading us into a war on false pretenses over two years BEFORE Bush was elected? If you are a Leftist then you have to believe this if you believe Bush lied.
====
Like I've PROVEN over and over again, the liberals are either totally DENSE or LIARS when they blame only ONE SIDE.....[not their's of course] for believing the INTELLIGENCE that showed saddam was and had been a threat that BOTH agreed needed to be REMOVED. Hell, clinton said himself that Iraq HAD a NW program. Yet they DENY that. LOL LOL How dense does one have to be? Well.....it appears pretty dense.
But...there will always be those liberals like CC who live in some fantasy world where they can just IGNORE the actions of their OWN party, IGNORE that their OWN party was in AGREEMENT, NOT arguing that Bush was 'lying' then....lol lol lol... while blaming their opposing party for everything...including lying about the same thing their party LIED about then too.
Even one who should have been believed....and a democrat at that....said the same thing - but of course, HE wasn't 'lying'. lol lol lol
""I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003"
Boy ALL those DEMS/LIBERALS who ALSO took this nation to war. Out of either believing the intelligent reports they ALL used to form their opinions....or because they're FOOLS who followed along like SHEEP. And this 'dumb/inarticulate' [as they falsely claim] president was SMART enough to FOOL them....make fools OF them. Who'd want to put a fool that follows like a sheep in the WH. Not I. I prefer the LEADER that we were lucky enough to have in office....at the right time.
And of course we NOW have those who should be tried for TREASON since they've admitted they didn't even BOTHER to read the intelligence reports before taking this nation of ours to WAR in Iraq. LOL LOL
Yea, just what we need is MORE followers/sheep like them. brother.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 2, 2007 03:08:51 AM newterrorists helping terrorists......but there is NO war on terrorism and we shouldn't CALL it that?
right. Guess the liberals think this is just a game. No enemies....they're not helping one another - they're not all praying for and working towards our destruction. Let's just arrest them and try them in the American court system with all their 'civil rights'.
Yea, let's make these idiots who live in denial our leaders. NOT.
Obviously those who actually KNOW what they're talking about see it MUCH differently.
But who would believe our troops/their commanders? Not many of the radical liberals who, like edwards, don't see what's in front of their eyes, each and every day. No let's just pretend there is no 'war on terrorism'. That will make it go away for sure. <HUGE eyeroll here>
Pretending, rather than facing the reality that ALL these terrorists/terrorist supporting nations ARE working for our failure, causes the liberals to support the goals of our enemies. "Do what they say....get out...then the terrorists will be happy with US."
Yea, elect them. That will sure take care of everything in quick order. They'll just surrender to these religious madmen. That
ought to make those who don't have a CLUE as to what we're facing happy. They can surrender to all terrorists and everything will be fine then. After all, it's the big, bad America's fault that we're experiencing all this. [According to the wacko's]....NOT the realists.
Their DENIAL is so strong....it's blinded them to actual reality in the REAL world.
~~~~~
U.S.: Iranian Force Carried Out Attack
Jul 2, 5:49 AM (ET)
By LEE KEATH
(AP)BAGHDAD (AP) - Iran's elite Quds force helped militants carry out a January attack in Karbala that killed five Americans, a U.S. general said Monday. U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner also accused Tehran of using the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah as a "proxy" to arm Shiite militants in Iraq.
The claims were an escalation in U.S. accusations that Iran is fueling Iraq's violence, which Tehran has denied, and were the first time the U.S. military has said Hezbollah has a direct role.
==============================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 2, 2007 03:23 AM ]
posted on July 4, 2007 05:15:45 AM new
Helenjw
posted on January 1, 2007 03:56:17 PM
Oh, cut the crap, Mingo. Here, like at OTWA your clinging attention to Linda exacerbates the problem. If you want to continue it's certainly your prerogative to do so
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
A group of 45 Muslim doctors threatened to use car bombs and rocket grenades in terrorist attacks in the United States during discussions on an extremist internet chat site.
Cyber-terrorists: Tariq Daour, Younis Tsouli and Waseem Mughal
Police found details of the discussions on a site run by one of a three-strong "cyber-terrorist" gang.
They were discovered at the home of Younis Tsouli, 23, Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London heard.
One message read: "We are 45 doctors and we are determined to undertake jihad and take the battle inside America.
"The first target which will be penetrated by nine brothers is the naval base which gives shelter to the ship Kennedy." This is thought to have been a reference to the USS John F Kennedy, which is often at Mayport Naval Base in Jacksonville, Florida.
The message discussed targets at the base, adding: "These are clubs for naked women which are opposite the First and Third units."
It also referred to using six Chevrolet GT vehicles and three fishing boats and blowing up petrol tanks with rocket propelled grenades.
Investigators have found no link between the Tsouli chat room and the group of doctors and medics currently in custody over attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.
However, sources said it was "definitely spooky" that the use of doctors for terrorist purposes was being discussed in jihadi terrorist circles up to three years ago.
Part of the inquiry into the London and Glasgow incidents will focus on whether al-Qa'eda has recruited doctors or other medical professionals because they are less likely to attract suspicion and can move easily around the western world.
The three "cyber terrorists" - a British national and two who had been given the right to live in Britain - are facing lengthy jail sentences after admitting using the internet to spread al-Qa'eda propaganda inciting Muslims to a violent holy war and to murder non-believers.
They had close links with al-Qa'eda in Iraq and believed they had to fight jihad against a global conspiracy by kuffars, or non-believers, to wipe out Islam.
The three are the first defendants in Britain to be convicted of inciting terrorist murder on the internet. They waged cyber-jihad on websites run from their bedrooms.
Tsouli promoted the ideology of Osama bin Laden via email and radical websites. He said in one message he was "very happy" about the July 7 bombings in London in 2005.
Tsouli, along with Tariq Daour, a biochemistry student, and Waseem Mughal, a law student, were intelligent, computer-literate men who promoted violent propaganda.
They created chat forums to direct willing fighters to Iraq and discuss murderous bomb attacks around the world. Films of hostages and beheadings were found by police.
Daour, 21, of Bayswater, west London, who was born in the United Arab Emirates, yesterday admitted inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside Britain. Moroccan-born Tsouli, 23, of Shepherd's Bush, west London, and British-born Mughal, 24, of Chatham, Kent, admitted the same charge on Monday.
They are due to be sentenced today. They also admitted conspiring together and with others to defraud banks, credit card companies and charge card companies. Daour had instructions for making explosives and poisons, the court was told. Police found instructions on causing an explosion with "rocket propellant'' and constructing a car bomb.
In one on-line conversation, Daour, asked what he would do with £1 million, replied: "Sponsor terrorist attacks, become the new Osama."
The three men outwardly appeared to be leading normal lives, studying and living with their parents. Tsouli had come to the UK with his family from Morocco in 2001.
Mughal had a degree in biochemistry from Leicester University and was studying for his masters.
Daour, who was granted British citizenship in May 2005, had applied to start a law degree.
London court jails 'cyber-jihadis' for online terror
Jul 5 10:23 AM US/Eastern
Three "cyber-jihadis" who used the Internet to urge Muslims to wage holy war on non-believers were jailed for between six-and-a-half and 10 years Thursday in the first case of its kind in Britain.
Tariq Al-Daour, Younes Tsouli and Waseem Mughal had close links with Al-Qaeda in Iraq and thought there was a "global conspiracy" to wipe out Islam, the Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London was told.
Moroccan-born Tsouli, 23, was jailed for 10 years; UAE-born Al-Daour, 21, received a six-and-a-half year sentence; and 24-year-old Mughal, who was born in Britain, was given seven-and-a-half years.
Sentencing them, Judge Charles Openshaw said the men had engaged in "cyber jihad", encouraging others to kill "kuffars" or non-believers.
"It would seem that Internet websites have become an effective means of communicating such ideas," he said, although he added that none of the men had come close to carrying out acts of violence themselves.
Referring to Tsouli, whom he recommended for deportation to Morocco after serving his sentence, he said: "He came no closer to a bomb or a firearm than a computer keyboard."
Al-Daour, from west London, on Wednesday admitted "inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom which would, if committed in England and Wales, constitute murder."
Tsouli, also from west London, and Mughal, from Kent, southeast England, admitted the same charge on Monday.
The guilty pleas came part way through a trial which had run for two months.
Al-Daour, Tsouli and Mughal also pleaded guilty to a 1.8-million-pound conspiracy to defraud banks, credit card and charge card companies.
The trial was told the computer experts spent at least 12 months trying to encourage people to follow the extreme ideology of Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, using email and radical websites.
Films of hostages and beheadings were found among their possessions, including footage of British contractor Ken Bigley, who was killed in Iraq in 2004; and US journalist Daniel Pearl, killed in Pakistan in 2002.
Compact discs containing instructions for making explosives and poisons were also found, with other documents giving advice on how to use a rocket-propelled grenade and how to make booby traps and a suicide vest.
Police who trawled through a mass of data and websites also discovered online conversations in which Al-Dour talked of sponsoring terrorist attacks, becoming "the new Osama," and justifying suicide bombings.
After the sentencing, the head of Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism unit, Peter Clarke, said in a statement: "These three men, by their own admission, were encouraging others to become terrorists and murder innocent people.
"This is the first successful prosecution for inciting murder using the Internet, showing yet again that terrorist networks are spanning the globe.... "Their terrorist tradecraft was sophisticated, but nevertheless defeated by this investigation."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 5, 2007 07:51 AM ]
posted on July 5, 2007 07:36:12 AM new
New Video From Al Qaeda Number Two
Maddy Sauer Reports:
As Americans celebrate the 4th of July today, Al Qaeda's top deputy Ayman Zawahiri is appearing in a new internet video praising jihadi fighters in Iraq and elsewhere. Dressed in all white and sitting before a news studio background, Zawahiri warns Americans that "Today, the wind - by grace of Allah - is blowing against Washington."
In the hour and half long video, which surfaced today on the website Strategic Translations, a translation and terror analysis firm, Zawahiri urges his followers to hurry to Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Somalia.
He also offers a message of confidence to the jihadi fighters in prison saying that victory in Iraq and Afghanistan will come soon.
"You must be patient and steadfast," he says. "Rejoice, for victory is near, with Allah's permission, and the herds of crusaders have begun to split up and their sole concern has become searching for a way out."
=================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 5, 2007 08:07:23 AM new
I wonder which cable network Linda subscribes to in order to get the 24/7 terror watch. I didn't see the Al-Qaeda News Network in my list of cable channels.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 5, 2007 02:30:04 PM new
‘Like meeting the devil’
“It was like meeting the devil,” he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Baghdad. “He talked of destroying Britain and the United States and then said, ’Those who cure you are going to kill you.”’
White, who runs Baghdad’s only Anglican parish and has been involved in several hostage negotiations in Iraq, said he did not understand the threat’s significance at the time.
He said he passed the general threat along to Britain’s Foreign Office, but did not mention the comment that could be interpreted as hinting at the involvement of doctors in a terror plot.
Then came the news that six physicians were among the eight suspects detained in the failed attacks in Britain.
“As soon as I heard many of the suspects were doctors I remembered those words,” he said. “I work with a lot of people who are not necessarily good people. It becomes very difficult to distinguish what threat is real and what is not.”
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 5, 2007 02:34 PM ]
posted on July 5, 2007 03:06:52 PM new Why are most of the terror suspects (so far) well-educated medical professionals, [b]not poor and dispossessed types?
July 05, 2007
THIS week's arrest of Mohamed Haneef in Brisbane may be more curious for the fact he's a professional lifesaver than for the possibility that he's a terrorist. So far, most of those being investigated in the latest British car bomb plots are, as is Haneef, doctors. The seeming paradox of the privileged seeking to avenge humiliation has many scratching their heads. Aren't Muslim martyrs supposed to be poor, dispossessed and resentful?
September 11 should have stripped us of that breezy simplification. The 19 hijackers came from means. Mohammed Atta, their ringleader, earned an engineering degree. He then moved to the West, opting for postgraduate studies in Germany. No aggrieved goatherder, that one.
In 2003, I interviewed Mohammad al-Hindi, the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza.
A physician himself, al-Hindi explained the difference between suicide and martyrdom. "Suicide is done out of despair," the good doctor diagnosed. "But most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives."
In short, it's not what the material world fails to deliver that drives suicide bombers. It's something else. Time and again, that something else has been articulated by the people committing these acts: their religion.
Consider Mohammad Sidique Khan, the teaching assistant who masterminded the July 7, 2005, transport bombings in London.
In a taped testimony, Khan railed against British foreign policy. But before bringing up Tony Blair, he emphasised that "Islam is our religion" and "the prophet is our role model". In short, Khan gave priority to God.
Now take Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-born Moroccan Muslim who murdered Amsterdam filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Bouyeri pumped several bullets into van Gogh's body. Knowing that multiple shots would finish off his victim, why didn't Bouyeri stop there? Why did he pull out a blade to decapitate van Gogh?
Again, we must confront religious symbolism. The blade is an implement associated with 7th-century tribal conflict. Wielding it as a sword becomes a tribute to the founding moment of Islam. Even the note stabbed into van Gogh's corpse, although written in Dutch, had the unmistakable rhythms of Arabic poetry.
Let's credit Bouyeri with honesty: at his trial he proudly acknowledged acting from religious conviction.
Despite integrating Muslims far more adroitly than most of Europe, North America isn't immune. Last year in Toronto, police nabbed 17 young Muslim men allegedly plotting to blow up Canada's parliament buildings and behead the Prime Minister.
They called their campaign Operation Badr, a reference to prophet Mohammed's first decisive military triumph, the Battle of Badr. Clearly the Toronto 17 drew inspiration from religious history.
For people with big hearts and goodwill, this must be uncomfortable to hear. But they can take solace that the law-and-order types have a hard time with it, too. After rounding up the Toronto suspects, police held a press conference and didn't once mention Islam or Muslims. At their second press conference, police boasted about avoiding those words. If the guardians of public safety intended their silence to be a form of sensitivity, they instead accomplished a form of artistry, airbrushing the role that religion plays in the violence carried out under its banner.
They're in fine company: moderate Muslims do the same. Although the vast majority of Muslims aren't extremists, it is important to start making a more important distinction: between moderate Muslims and reform-minded ones.
Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam but deny that Islam has anything to do with it. By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions, effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won't challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations. To do so would be admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can't go there.
Reform-minded Muslims say it's time to admit that Islam's scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for reinterpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice that their monopoly is over.
Reinterpreting doesn't mean rewriting. It means rethinking words and practices that already exist, removing them from a 7th-century tribal time warp and introducing them to a 21st-century pluralistic context. Un-Islamic? God, no. The Koran contains three times as many verses calling on Muslims to think, analyse and reflect than passages that dictate what's absolutely right or wrong. In that sense, reform-minded Muslims are as authentic as moderates and quite possibly more constructive.
This week a former jihadist wrote in a British newspaper that the "real engine of our violence" is "Islamic theology". Months ago, he told me that as a militant he raised most of his war chest from dentists. Islamist violence: it's not just for doctors any more. Tackling Islamist violence: it can't be left to moderates any more.
================
Irshad Manji is a senior fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy. She is creator of the documentary Faith Without Fear and author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in her Faith (Random House, Australia).
posted on July 5, 2007 05:17:50 PM newcan't find ABC news on your own, huh ld? figures
No I do not get the Arkansas Bible Channel, or is it the Ashcroft Believers Channel. No it must be the Arkansas Bigots Club.
What's the matter Linda getting your news from the MSM - you know the MSM that you despise so much. Based on your posts, it would seem you get your news from the Bin Laden terror update channel.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
