Posted on 09/22/2001 6:16:00 AM PDT by Bull Man
Btw, how is that book coming?
5.56mm
And one hundred million patriots. I'd like the long-term odds even if these numbers were reversed.
This is a very important article. The mention of northern Virginia and the comments on the Clinton administration's pretense of freezing assets are particularly interesting.
Look how far it gets them with Israel. These people are like , spoiled punks whose parents coddle their BS. It's only a cycle of violence, because their is never decisive action taken. Everytime they are defeated in their attempt to annihilate the Jews, they resort to throwing a tantrum. Then they are coddled. It's time to be linear and force a decision. Stop the crap or you'll get the beating of your life when we blow up your crapper.
After several more 9-11 level events, it will turn vicious.
Don't forget where the Pentagon terrorists lived.
MEQ: Can you estimate the number of fundamentalists in the United States?
Emerson: No one really knows but one can extrapolate some numbers. I have attended conferences in Detroit, Oklahoma City, and Chicago that were attended by thousands of people yelling "Allahu Akbar" on hearing the announcement of a suicide operation against Israel. Based on the number of participants at radical Islamic conferences, the estimated membership rolls of a dozen other radical Islam groups, plus the number of subscribers to Az-Zaytuna, the Hamas publication, I assume there are at least one hundred thousand hard-core believers in militant Islamic fundamentalism. The number may actually be significantly higher.
As for American blacks, their alienation from and anger at white society has generated several movements that emphasize self-esteem along with secession. The Nation of Islam is one of them, and it often serves as an access to traditional (or Sunni) Islam -- and possibly to fundamentalism. American blacks comprise nearly 40 percent of the entire Muslim American population.
I'm not suggesting that American blacks are Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, but if the American people believe "birds of a feather flock together" then the reparations debate takes on a powerful new dimension.
Emerson: Yes, they have. The Islamic groups' records, as well as official records released by the White House, show that the Executive Branch, the State Department, and the FBI continue to meet with radical or anti-American Islamic groups that openly support terrorist leaders (like Hasan at-Turabi of the Sudan) or even raised money for the defense of terrorists (such as for Musa Abu Marzook).
I suspect that there was the policy of not mounting terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration because of an implicit deal between that administration and the Islamic terrorists. With Clinton out and Bush in, that deal is off.
This mailing has four parts. The first two are about the work by Steven
Emerson and myself.
The second two are a bibliography of articles I have written and have
appeared in the Middle East Quarterly on Islamist violence in the United
States, with links. I hope you find this useful.
Yours truly, Daniel Pipes
I. Nobody Took it Seriously!
By Jonathan S. Tobin
Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia)
September 13, 2001
http://www.jewishexponent.com/Guide.asp?uid=&szparent=21&pubID=120
... For years, experts on terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism have warned
us to start listening to the things being said about America in the Arab and
Islamic world.
Scholars such as Philadelphian Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum have
written books and articles and given countless lectures about the dangers of
Islamism (as opposed to mainstream Islam, which does not support terrorism).
Pipes warned us about the way these people feel about America. He outlined
the deep roots of this perversion of a culture and religion, and made it
clear that what was happening was a war against the West and specifically
the United States.
But though he was treated respectfully by some in the media and his writing
appeared regularly in The Wall Street Journal and other places, he was often
put down as a right-winger. Some in the media even allowed themselves to be
influenced by the smears against Pipes being spread by American sympathizers
with the terrorists themselves.
In the same way, journalist Steven Emerson, who specializes in the subject
of the role of Arab terror groups in the United States, was also put down as
out of the mainstream.
Emerson was responsible for an award-winning documentary about American
support groups for Palestinian terror groups, and he has frequently
testified before Congress about the subject of terrorism. But, like Pipes,
he never achieved the kind of status that elevates journalists into a
television talking head who is given the opportunity to spread his ideas on
the broadcast and cable networks.
Emerson, too, was smeared by Arab groups - and suffered for it. Indeed, he communication to an Arab group promising that he would not be heard again.
And though the U.S. government paid lip service to counterterrorism, it
never gained the support it needed. All too often, both Republicans and
Democrats downplayed talk about terrorism because they feared it would
undermine a Middle East peace process that was itself a shell game.
The trouble with Pipes and Emerson is that they weren't telling us what we
wanted to hear.
Instead of pooh-poohing the threat of terror internationally and even on our
own shores, they pointed out the strength of the enemy and reminded us that
we are a target. Even worse, they had the chutzpah to call domestic
supporters of terrorism by their right names and refused to put down this
lethal enemy as marginal to Arab culture. ...
II. Bush's Big Blunder
SmarterTimes.com
September 18, 2001
http://www.smartertimes.com/archive/2001/09/010918.html
A front-page article in today's New York Times reports on a meeting between
President Bush and American Muslims. The Times article says "The president
of the Council on American-Islamic relations, Nihad Awad, who attended the
session with Mr. Bush, said, 'We thank the president for taking the
initiative to reach out to the American Muslim community during this time of
national crisis. His supportive remarks will help set a tone of tolerance
and inclusion for our society.'"
The Times article refers to "Mr. Bush's twin messages of retaliation abroad
and tolerance at home," and it notes that the president, in his appearance
with the American Muslims, referred to "the good folks standing with me."
The New York Times, which wasted supertankers full of ink in the immediate
aftermath of last week's attack criticizing Mr. Bush for not answering
questions publicly, for not publicly explaining his personal security
measures, and for not flying immediately to New York, lets Mr. Bush's
appearance today go entirely uncriticized. There's not even a hint in the
Times coverage that the characters Mr. Bush met with might be anything other
than "good people," or that by meeting them with them the president is
sending a dangerous message of naive complacency about the real dangers of
Islamic radicals in America.
Since the Council on American-Islamic Relations is mentioned in the New York
Times article by name, let's look at its record first.
Here's a rundown from Daniel Pipes, a former Reagan administration Middle
East aide who now runs the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia and the
wonderfully informative Web site DanielPipes.org:
Mr. Pipes says: "CAIR is a particularly worrisome organization because it
has succeeded in portraying itself as a public affairs organization
promoting 'interest and understanding among the general public with regards
to Islam and Muslims in North America.' In fact, this organization is
radical to the core; it seeks nothing less than the imposition of Islamist
mores on the United States."
Mr. Pipes notes that CAIR's record includes the following: "Apologizing for
such killers as Hamas (a group associated with the murder of 7 Americans)
and Usama bin Ladin (charged with the Tanzania and Kenya embassy bombings a
year ago). . . . Helping promote terrorism: In the words of Steve Pomerantz,
a former Chief of Counterterrorism for the FBI, 'CAIR, its leaders, and its
activities, effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.' . . .
Intimidation of patriotic Muslims who disagree with CAIR's chauvinist
agenda: In one case (Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani), the FBI is looking
into charges that he received death threats after renouncing the
chauvinists. . . Defense of even the most archaic and barbaric of customs
associated with Islam: When a prosecutor in Cleveland argued that the bail
of two young men being held for an 'honor killing' of their female cousin
should be increased, CAIR replied by accusing him of 'ethnic and religious
stereotyping' and called for a formal investigation into the prosecutor's
actions."
In addition, as anti-terrorism expert Steven Emerson has noted in
Congressional testimony, CAIR co-sponsored a May 24, 1998, all-day program
in the Walt Whitman Auditorium of Brooklyn College in Brooklyn, New York. As
Mr. Emerson testified, "In Arabic, Wagdi Ghuniem, a militant Islamic cleric
from Egypt, mesmerized his audience, with his relentless tirade against the
Jews, reminding them of the Jews' 'infidelity,' 'stealth' and 'deceit.'
Known for his folksy deliveries and exhortations to commit violence against
the Jews, Ghuniem did not disappoint his crowd, several of whom had come
just to hear him. The conflict with the Jews, he said, was not over land but
one of religion. 'The problem of Palestine is not a problem of belief.
suppose the Jews said "Palestine-you [Muslims] can take it." Would it then
be ok? What would we tell them? No! The problem is belief, it is not a
problem of land.'"
Mr. Emerson continued: "Ghuniem then led his rapt audience, which numbered
as many as 500, in a special song, the audience responsively repeating each
refrain: 'No to the Jews, Descendants of the Apes.'"
Says Mr. Pipes: "In short, CAIR represents not the great civilization of
Islam but a radical utopian movement originating in the Middle East that
seeks to impose its ways on the United States. Americans should consider
themselves warned: a new danger exists in their midst."
So much for CAIR. But, according to the CAIR Web site, CAIR wasn't the only
radical, terrorist-sympathizing American Muslim group that President Bush
met with yesterday, less than a week after the worst terrorist attack in
American history. In fact, according to the CAIR web site, the meeting
yesterday also included "representatives from the American Muslim Alliance"
and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council is a group founded and headed by Salam
Al-Marayati. He's the man whose views on terrorism were so problematic that,
after an outcry, Rep. Richard Gephardt withdrew his support for Mr.
Al-Marayiti as a nominee to a federal anti-terrorism commission.
According to an article in the August 22, 1998, Los Angeles Times, the
Muslim Public Affairs Council called America's 1998 missile strikes on Osama
Bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan "illegal" and "immoral."
Again, Daniel Pipes, in an article posted on DanielPipes.org, is
instructive. Mr. Pipes writes of Mr. Al-Marayati: "Here are three elements
of his radicalism: First, he wraps the American flag around some of the
least attractive features of Middle Eastern life. In 1993, he memorably
asserted that 'When Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death,"
that statement epitomized jihad [Islamic holy war].' In 1996, he made the
silly and inaccurate observation that 'American freedom fighters hundreds of
years ago were also regarded as terrorists by the British.' Mr.
Al-Marayati's intent here is obvious: to render jihad and terrorism Mr. Pipes continued: "Second, Mr. Al-Marayati apologizes for the most
ghastly Middle Eastern regimes and draws moral equivalencies between them
and America. In his view, Iraq is no better or worse than America:
'Saddam Hussein's behavior in and around Iraq has been characterized as
reckless. The same can be said about U.S. policy as a result of its
reactionary mode.' . . .Third, Mr. Al-Marayati turns a blind eye to
terrorism if it is of a fundamentalist Muslim persuasion (not a great
credential for someone hoping to serve on a counterterrorism commission).
Take the February 1996 incident when a Palestinian named Muhammad Hamida
shouted the fundamentalist war cry, Allahu Akbar (Allah is Great), as he
drove his car intentionally into a crowded bus stop in Jerusalem, killing
one Israeli and injuring 23 others. Before he could escape or hurt anyone
else, Hamida was shot dead. Commenting on the affair, Mr. Al-Marayati said
not a word about Hamida's murderous rampage but instead focused on Hamida's
death, which he called 'a provocative act,' and demanded the extradition of
his executors to America 'to be tried in a U.S. court' on terrorism
charges."
Then there is the American Muslim Alliance, another group that CAIR reports
had a representative at the Bush event yesterday. That's the group so
extreme that even Hillary Rodham Clinton, no anti-Muslim extremist, decided
to return $50,000 it had raised for her senate campaign. The American Muslim
Alliance was also a sponsor of the "No to the Jews, Descendants of the Apes"
rally at Brooklyn College. And, as Steven Emerson has reported on
OpinionJournal.com, "AMA's head, Agha Saeed, has openly sanctioned the use
of 'armed resistance' against Israel and declared that the 'Zionist
occupiers of Palestine can be beaten back.' At its 1997 annual convention,
the AMA distributed an article by S.A. Ahsani, head of the AMA's Texas
chapter, denying the existence of 'Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek.' At AMA
national conferences in 1997, 1998 and 2000, numerous speakers numerous
speakers condemned the 'Jewish and Zionist' lobbies and their 'control' of
the United States."
Mr. Bush may have had a good reason for luring these folks to a meeting with
him. He could, for instance, have wanted to give the FBI a way to get their
faces in the database. But there are also less sympathetic possible
explanations. Mr. Bush's staff could have blundered in trying to achieve the
worthwhile goal of distinguishing between fanatic Muslim terrorists and
patriotic American Muslims who genuinely condemn terrorism (yes, there are
indeed some). Or, even worse, it is possible that Mr. Bush's actions are
being driven in this critical hour not by his national security team but by
his political aides with a misguided eye on the 2004 vote in Michigan and
other swing states with large Arab and Muslim populations.
Regardless of the reason, though, describing the CAIR, MPAC and AMA gang as
"good folks" is so inappropriate that the Times would have been wise to at
least probe further into what exactly Mr. Bush was doing at this event.
Inappropriate, too, is the message of "retaliation abroad and tolerance at
home." Tolerance at home is one of the things that got America into the
trouble it got into last Tuesday morning. Some of the terrorists had been
tolerated for years while living in apartments in Florida and getting flight
training. It's as if during the height of the Cold War, an American
president had shown up at a convention of the Communist Party, USA, declared
that the American communists were "good folks," and called for containment
abroad but tolerance at home. That's not to defend the excesses or First
Amendment violations of McCarthyism, but neither is it to be complacent or
naive about the genuine threat that was posed by Soviet spies in America.
Tolerance is one thing; a presidential appearance and endorsement of enemy
sympathizers during wartime is quite another.
We must never doubt that reason trumps self-willed ignorance.;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.