This is very good.
Its quite a thing that CBN, The Christian Broadcasting Network is picking up the slack where the secular news services have dropped the ball so horribly.
Category Archives: American Civil Wars
Multicultural advocate Prof. stabbed to death by Muslim
(Binghamton is very close to Islamberg, national headquarters of Jamaat ul-Fuqra)
H/T GOV From Pressconects.com
The two apartment-mates of the man charged with stabbing a Binghamton University professor to death on Friday said Abdulsalam Al-Zahrani was confrontational, argumentative and “acted like a terrorist.”
Quantcast
The three men lived together for the past three weeks in a first-floor unit on Main Street in Binghamton. The men were brought together by a landlord, who rented a vacant room to Al-Zahrani, a 46-year-old Saudi national who was working on his doctorate at BU.
Souleyman Sukho, a Senegalese doctoral student at BU, said during the three weeks the men lived together, Al-Zahrani “came at me with a knife.”
“He asked me if I was afraid of dying,” Sukho said. “Then he went into his room. I told him, ‘don’t ask me the question if you don’t want to hear my answer.’
“He behaved like a terrorist,” Sukho said. “He would open his door and would be screaming on the phone.”
Binghamton University killing: 46-year-old grad student charged in professor’s death
Sukho said he didn’t understand what Al-Zahrani was screaming about because he was speaking in a language Sukho didn’t understand. “He claimed he was persecuted.”
The other roommate, Luis Pena, a 22-year-old master’s degree student at BU, said he tried to mitigate the tension between Al-Zahrani and Sukho, but he, too, was concerned about Al-Zahrani’s actions.
“He would be sitting here on the sofa and just blurt out, ‘I just feel like destroying the world,”’ Pena said. “He would just make weird remarks.
“He comes off calm (but) he could flip in a second,” Pena said.
Sukho and Pena said they didn’t hear Al-Zahrani make any references to Richard T. Antoun, 77, the Binghamton University anthropology professor emeritus who was stabbed to death Friday inside Science Building I on the Vestal campus.
Police spent nearly 18 hours at the apartment between Friday and Saturday, speaking to the roommates and searching for clues.
Here is the video linked to above, about Islamburg, which is very close to where this stabbing took place.
Interview: Author of Muslim Mafia
This mans book is actually changing US government policy with groups like CAIR. Well worth the time to listen to. This is just audio and shows the same image the whole time. Expect to hear very real fall out from the highest places in Government as a consequence of this man’s investigation and book. A documentary would not surprise me at all.
Kalifornistan?
I have no idea what to make of this. I’m told it’s good. But it looks like it could go either way. Hell Ill watch it anyway. The people who made it are associated with some truly outstanding films such as the path to 911 etc.
For more information please visit www.kalifornistan.com
Major Hassan and his pen pals.
Here are a couple of videos from an article on Tundra Tabloids. I rearanged them a bit but go over and have a look he has some other great stuff there as well. The man can photoshop what can I say.
In any case it appears that Hassan gave a lot of zakat, or charity money for Islamic terrorist groups, and had for years before he decided to go out in a blaze of murder. Quite the choice of pen pals. It must be getting hard for leftist defenders of Islam to claim he was acting against the peaceful intentions of the faith and was really just some nut.
Here is the video from ABC News on his pen pals. Click over for more info if you like.
Now after watching this, it may be worth noting that he could have spared himself a lot of time and trouble if he just watched a few Robert Spencer lectures. Hell most of us in the anti-jihad could have answered his questions with chapter and verse. Spencer would be who I would go to first though:
Vlad Tepes’s prediction for the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed
Before reading my prediction, I would recommend reading the Stratfor Analysis and the Washington Times one as well and then hopefully, my prediction will make some sense.
First of all, the prosecution has been put in an impossible position. They have to get a conviction to avoid massive anger by the public, and they have to do it with a likely uncooperative CIA etc, as the evidence may both make these agencies look bad in the public eye for reasons such as water-boarding etc. as well as the fact that a great deal of the evidence may compromise existing operations and tip off various groups both within the US and terrorist cells overseas. This was one of the reasons given that the one person so far taken to a civilian court over 911 was allowed to walk from a German court. So its quite possible that the agencies with the evidence will not provide it. Other reasons will likely include the fact that this evidence was never collected with the methods standards or intentions of a criminal proceeding. So it most certainly will not make the cut unnecessarily embarrassing all in the process.
It should also be noted that intel agencies have turned on US administrations before. The FBI for instance had a grudge against Nixon and supplied one major US newspaper with a carefully crafted series of leaks which became known as ‘Watergate’.
Some years later, the CIA was displeased with G. W. Bush’s choice on how to conduct the Iraq war and leaked material to the NYT in order to create hostile public sentiment and it worked rather all too well.
I can easily see an environment where the constraints placed on security agencies by the Bush admin, and now being turned against them by the Obama admin, will make them happily take the only logical course open to them.
Refuse to cooperate with the prosecution, allow Mohammed to walk, and see the fastest decline in popularity of a US president in all of history.
As I see it, public perception will be that the refusal to cooperate with the prosecution will be on orders from the white house. People typically see the government as monolithic hence the preponderance of 911 conspiracy theorists. When the prosecution has no decent evidence to convict, and they likely would have had none even if the CIA and so on wished to cooperate, it will be seen as evidence of an administration that does not have American interests as front and centre.
I suspect that the CIA would rather see Khalid walk because he wasn’t read his Miranda rights as opposed to walk after a humiliating 8 month massively public condemnation of the nature and methods of the CIA itself, when it was actually doing its job according to the rules of the previous administration.
Eeyore for Vlad. Nov 17 2009
Please feel free to comment, add corrections or alternate ideas.
Here is a radio interview on point. Description and link below:
On our radio show last Saturday
on the Obama administration’s decision to try five top terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in federal court in New York for their “crimes,” i.e., making war against the United States. It’s a great interview, I think, and as high-level a discussion as you will ever hear of the issues raised by that potentially fateful decision. Not because of my skill as an interviewer, but because Andy is uniquely qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject. In a better world, he, rather than Eric Holder, would be making such decisions. So here it is: the podcast of our interview with Andy McCarthy.
Stratfor: Deciphering the Mohammed Trial
Deciphering the Mohammed Trial
November 16, 2009 | 2035 GMT
By George Friedman
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in federal court in New York. Holder’s decision was driven by the need for the U.S. government to decide how to dispose of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. Naval base outside the boundaries of the United States selected as the camp in which to hold suspected al Qaeda members.
We very carefully use the word “camp” rather than prison or prisoner of war camp. This is because of an ongoing and profound ambiguity not only in U.S. government perceptions of how to define those held there, but also due to uncertainties in international law, particularly with regard to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Were the U.S. facility at Guantanamo a prison, then its residents would be criminals. If it were a POW camp, then they would be enemy soldiers being held under the rules of war. It has never really been decided which these men are, and therefore their legal standing has remained unclear.
War vs. Criminal Justice
The ambiguity began shortly after 9/11, when then-U.S. President George W. Bush defined two missions: waging a war on terror, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice. Both made for good rhetoric. But they also were fundamentally contradictory. A war is not a judicial inquiry, and a criminal investigation is not part of war.
An analogy might be drawn from Pearl Harbor. Imagine that in addition to stating that the United States was at war with Japan, Franklin Roosevelt also called for bringing the individual Japanese pilots who struck Hawaii to justice under American law. This would make no sense. As an act of war, the Japanese action fell under the rules of war as provided for in international law, the U.S. Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Japanese pilots could not be held individually responsible for the lawful order they received. In the same sense, trying to bring soldiers to trial in a civilian court in the United States would make no sense. Creating a mission in which individual Japanese airmen would be hunted down and tried under the rules of evidence not only would make no sense, it would be impossible. Building a case against them individually also would be impossible. Judges would rule on evidence, on whether an unprejudiced jury could be found, and so on. None of this happened, of course — World War II was a war, not a judicial inquiry.
It is important to consider how wars are conducted. Enemy soldiers are not shot or captured because of what they have done; they are shot and captured because of who they are — members of an enemy military force. War, once launched, is pre-emptive. Soldiers are killed or captured in the course of fighting enemy forces, or even before they have carried out hostile acts. Soldiers are not held responsible for their actions, but neither are they immune to attack just because they have not done anything. Guilt and innocence do not enter into the equation. Certainly, if war crimes are in question, charges may be brought; the UCMJ determines how they will be tried by U.S. forces. Soldiers are tried by courts-martial, not by civilian courts, because of their status as soldiers. Soldiers are tried by a jury of their peers, and their peers are held to be other soldiers.
International law is actually not particularly ambiguous about the status of the members of al Qaeda. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them because they have not adhered to a fundamental requirement of the Geneva Conventions, namely, identifying themselves as soldiers of an army. Doing so does not mean they must wear a uniform. The postwar Geneva Conventions make room for partisans, something older versions of the conventions did not. A partisan is not a uniformed fighter, but he must wear some form of insignia identifying himself as a soldier to enjoy the conventions’ protections. As Article 4.1.6 puts it, prisoners of war include “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.” The Geneva Conventions of 1949 does not mention, nor provide protection to, civilians attacking foreign countries without openly carrying arms. Continue Reading →
Some great news for a change!
Thanks Jdamn for this article. From her blog, The Force of Reason:
Oh, Hell’s Yes! Judge Carter to Introduce Legislation Granting Fort Hood Victims Combatant Status
November 14th, 2009
That means that they would receive Purple Hearts, and that the US would effectively recognize that we are at war with political Islam.
Will Pvt. Andrew William Long receive a Purple Heart, too?
“The attack on Fort Hood was a planned terrorist attack, the same as the attacks against our forces overseas,” says Carter. “Our wounded and the families of those who lost their lives should receive the same treatment, recognition, and benefits as if the attack occurred on a U.S. military installation in Iraq or Afghanistan.”
While many military and survivor benefits are the same regardless of the status of the casualty, combatant status allows military personnel to receive the Purple Heart, and civilians to receive the civilian equivalent award, the Secretary of Defense Medal of Freedom. Combatant status would also guarantee that the beneficiaries of all military personnel who lost their lives in the attack would receive the maximum life insurance benefit available, among other benefits.
It’s almost like some of our elected officials live and operate in reality.
STRATFOR: The Hasan and Fort Hood case
By Scott Stewart and Fred Burton
In last week’s global security and intelligence report, we discussed the recent call by the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasir al-Wahayshi, for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets in the Muslim world and the West. We also noted how it is relatively simple to conduct such attacks against soft targets using improvised explosive devices, guns or even knives and clubs.
The next day, a lone gunman, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire on a group of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. The victims were in the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, a facility on the base where troops are prepared for deployment and where they take care of certain processing tasks such as completing insurance paperwork and receiving medical examinations and vaccinations.
Even though the targets of Hasan’s attack were soldiers, they represented a very soft target in this environment. Most soldiers on bases inside the United States are normally not armed and are only provided weapons for training. The only personnel who regularly carry weapons are the military police and the base civilian police officers. In addition to being unarmed, the soldiers at the center were closely packed together in the facility as they waited to proceed from station to station. The unarmed, densely packed mass of people allowed Hasan to kill 13 (12 soldiers and one civilian employee of the center) and wound 42 others when he opened fire.
Hasan is a U.S.-born Muslim who, according to STRATFOR sources and media accounts, has had past contact with jihadists, including the radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki is a U.S.-born imam who espouses a jihadist ideology and who was discussed at some length in the 9/11 commission report for his links to 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. Al-Awlaki, who is currently living in Yemen and reportedly has contacts with al Qaeda, posted a message on his Web site Nov. 9 praising Hasan’s actions. Despite Hasan’s connections to al-Awlaki and other jihadists, it is unknown at this point if he was even aware of al-Wahayshi’s recent message calling for simple attacks, and therefore it is impossible to tell if his attack was in response to it.
However, one thing that is certain is that investigators examining Hasan’s computer hard drive, e-mail traffic and Internet history will be looking into that possibility, along with other indications that Hasan was linked to radicals.
We noted last week that by their very nature, individual actors and small cells are very difficult for the government to detect. They must somehow identify themselves by contacting a government informant or another person who reports them to the authorities, attend a militant training camp or conduct correspondence with a person or organization under government scrutiny. In the Hasan case, it now appears that Hasan did self-identify by making radical statements to people he worked with, who reported him to the authorities. It also appears that he had correspondence with people such as al-Awlaki, whom the government was monitoring. Because of this behavior, Hasan brought himself to the attention of the Department of Defense, the FBI and the CIA.
The fact that Hasan was able to commit this attack after bringing government attention to himself could be due to a number of factors. Chief among them is the fact that it is tactically impossible for a government to identify every aspiring militant actor and to pre-empt every act of violence. The degree of difficulty is increased greatly if an actor does indeed act alone and does not give any overt clues through his actions or his communications of his intent to attack. Because of this, the Hasan case provides an excellent opportunity to examine national security investigations and their utility and limitations.
The Nature of Intelligence Investigations
The FBI will typically open up an intelligence investigation (usually referred to as a national security investigation) in any case where there is an indication or allegation that a person is involved in terrorist activity but there is no evidence that a specific law has been broken. Many times these investigations are opened up due to a lead passed by the CIA, National Security Agency or a foreign liaison intelligence service. Other times an FBI investigation can come as a spin-off from another FBI counterterrorism investigation already under way or be prompted by a piece of information collected by an FBI informant or even by a tip from a concerned citizen — like the flight instructors who alerted the FBI to the suspicious behavior of some foreign flight students prior to the 9/11 attacks. In such a case, the FBI case agent in charge of the investigation will open a preliminary inquiry, which gives the agent a limited window of time to look into the matter. If no indication of criminal activity is found, the preliminary inquiry must be closed unless the agent receives authorization from the special agent in charge of his division and FBI headquarters to extend it.
If, during the preliminary inquiry, the investigating agents find probable cause that a crime has been committed, the FBI will open a full-fledged criminal investigation into the case, similar to what we saw in the case of Luqman Ameen Abdullah and his followers in Detroit. Continue Reading →
Cost of refusal to deal with reality can be measured in lives.
One of the little mental applets I run in the background of my mind as a general rule, is trying to estimate the difference between some kind of objective reality, and how we as individuals or as a species decide to view events. Certainly the cost is in some kind of proportion to the difference. To borrow from a very old phrase, if you cannot tell the difference between shit and shinola, you will have very stinky shoes.
In this case, president Obama seems unable or unwilling to recognize who the enemy is with respect to the shooter at Fort Hood. This very refusal, it is now clear as day, is exactly the reason this attack happened. Everyone knew that this man was sympathetic to Islam and it’s goals and political ambitions. He was already under investigation for his terrorist ties among other things. But political correctness made it impossible for him to be removed from his position of power, access, and authority and ultimatly to the deaths of over a dozen US servicemen and injury to dozens more.
President Clinton for similar reasons was unable to prevent the attack on the WTC on September 11 2001 because his administration was not prepared to deal with the facts of the first attack on that same building by that same group for the same reasons less than a decade earlier.
For each of us, our refusal to admit where reality ends and our fantasies begin has a personal cost. Sometimes in mere money but as often in health and lifespan such as smoking or other habits we may cling to. But in a leader, the cost is exponential and to all of us.
During WW2, Adolph Hitler had a curtain built into his car so that if he was forced to drive through a bombed out area, he could draw his curtain and would not have to see the devastation wreaked on the German people. When Churchill was told about German rocket damage, he would take a car to the spot immediately and examine what the Nazi forces had done in order to best asses the damage and better determine the right course of action.
It is likely this one thing more than any other that won the war for the allies and against the Nazis. Reality, trumps fantasy when it comes to tactics.
Obama needs to have this explained to him.
Or perhaps it is as Shakespeare so eloquently stated it in the character of the king of Denmark in Hamlet:
“Madness in great ones, must not unwatched go”
Eeyore for Vlad
Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut
It seems as if the Obama administration may have a difficult time whitewashing this as not a Muslim act of terror. Obama has already asked us not to jump to conclusions and of course, as this was not a white policeman doing his job arresting people breaking in to homes, I can see why he would say that. Obama only jumps to conclusions when he is wrong, and the object of that conclusion is a white Christian American.
Too bad Muslims typically don’t drink. No beer at the white house for Hasan I guess.
Meanwhile, back at Fort Hood:
From the Telegraph by way of The Religion of Peace:
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
By Nick Allen in Fort Hood
Published: 5:00PM GMT 08 Nov 2009
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army doctor named as a suspect in the shooting death of 13 people and the wounding of 31 others at Fort Hood, Texas Photo: GETTY
He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.
Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe. Continue Reading →
CNN notices that Islam may be a factor in the Fort Hood shootings
Robert Spencer on the Fort Hood shooting
Compare and contrast this with the absurd analysis by Dr. Phill in the video below.
h/t Occidental Soapbox
A true horror movie
This video is the most frightening thing I have seen since the exorcist was re released with new footage.
Here, the psycho-left does every conceivable thing to detract from the raw facts of the matter. A Muslim goes and kills a bunch of people in the name of Islam after saying that is what they intend to do, and a group of leftists attempts to spin it as anything but. Here, the narrative is at its loudest. There is only one sane person on this panel and it is most certainly not doctor Phil, a man who actually places his own blinders on in the morning. The one sane person is pilloried and on national TV. That is what courage of your convictions really looks like.
This video thanks to Weaselzippers and www.gatesofvienna.blogspot.com
Muslim Jihadi Terrorist Responsible For The Fort Hood Massacre Was A PayPal-estinian Arab…….
Fakestinian Nidal Hasan
Or should we say the son of “PayPal-istinian” parents?
The mosts heavily aided group of people in the history of the world
This is turning out to be a case of a fully coherant, Muslim man, who also happens to be a diligent practioner of his Islamic faith. This has nothing to do with “bullying” or feelings of discrimination, but of a pious Muslim acting out on his beliefs. Watch the media try to spin it every which way other than what it really is, an ISLAMIC JIHAD TERRORIST ATTACK.
Pamela Geller has information about Nidal Hasan’s actions on the morning of the attack: “Neighbors say he was giving away his possessions this morning and PASSING OUT QURANS. Newscaster: “he was proud of his religion”.”
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch has it that: Fort Hood jihad shooter was disciplined for Islamic proselytizing “CAIR has been working overtime (they’re quoted in this article also), and the “Muslims fear backlash” victimhood machine is in high gear. No one, of course, is questioning whether there might be any connection between this man’s devoutly held Islam and the massacre today. After all, how could there be any such connection? Islam is a Religion of Peace™!”
Here’s another Fakestinian who made it into the headlines over thirty years ago, Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated US presidential candidate, Robert Kennedy. They never considered his being Islamized or influenced by his Muslim teachers in school who were preaching jihad, as having been a factor either.
Fakestinian Sirhan Sirhan,
terrorist jihadi murderer
terrorist jihadi murderer
Then there is the dead Fakestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and his involvement in the murder of two US diplomats in Sudan in 73′. On Arafat’s order, his thugs raided the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, taking U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel and Charge d’Affaires diplomat George Curtis Moore and others hostage, only to murder them later on in cold blood.
Murdering bastard Arafat
former thug in chief of the Fakestinian Authority
The Arabs called “Palestinians” have been waging a war upon the US for decades. Those who have been given more aid and help than any other people in the world, continually bite the hands that helps them. So no, it doesn’t come as a surprise that the jihadist who murdered 12 US soldiers in cold blood at Fort Hood was a “Palestinian” Arab.
Fakestinian Arab woman cheering the
murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11
by her Muslim co-religionists