Exclusive Video: Anwar al-Awlaki’s Long-Lost U.S. Speech from September 1, 2001

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

 

111002 Al-Awlaki death deals major blow to al-...

On September 1, 2001, just days before the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki gave an infamous lecture on “tolerance” at the 2001 ISNA convention, just as some of his disciples were preparing to launch the largest terrorist attack in American history.

 

One of his co-panelists in 2001, Hamza Yusuf, is one of this year’s keynote speakers. At the 1995 ISNA convention, Yusuf told the crowd that  Judaism “is a most racist religion.”

 

Video of Awlaki’s lecture has never before been viewed by the public. PJ Media has obtained a video — watch it above in its entirety.

 

At the time of the speech, Awlaki was a media darling. The New York Times hailed him as part of “a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.” NPR contrasted Awlaki with Osama bin Laden, describing Awlaki as one of the “moderates who want to solve the problems without violence” and someone who could “build bridges between Islam and the West.” Awlaki was even featured in a November 2001 Washington Post Ramadan online chat.

The recognition of Awlaki wasn’t exclusive to the media. He was also leading prayers for congressional Muslim staffers on Capitol Hill. Post-9/11, he was lecturing on Islam inside the executive dining room of the Pentagon, still scarred from the al-Qaeda hijackers that had crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into it.

He was, according to the Wall Street Journal, even one of the instructors that taught prospective Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military.

Read the rest at The Counter Jihad Report

FBI Tracking 100 Suspected Extremists In Military

Just what does ‘tracking’ mean?  The Army was aware of Nidal Hasan’s emails to Anwar Al-Awlaki but did not act on the information.  Had they done so, 13 people would still be alive!  We need to do more than track – we need to ACT!!! – Kasey

By  via NPR

The FBI has conducted more than 100 investigations into suspected Islamic extremists within the military, NPR has learned. About a dozen of those cases are considered serious.

Officials define that as a case requiring a formal investigation to gather information against suspects who appear to have demonstrated a strong intent to attack military targets. This is the first time the figures have been publicly disclosed.

The FBI and Department of Defense call these cases “insider threats.” They include not just active and reserve military personnel but also individuals who have access to military facilities such as contractors and close family members with dependent ID cards.

Officials would not provide details about the cases and the FBI would not confirm the numbers, but they did say that cases seen as serious could include, among others things, suspects who seem to be planning an attack or were in touch with “dangerous individuals” who were goading them to attack.

Details Revealed At Closed Congressional Hearing

The FBI and the Department of Defense declined to discuss the figures on the record, but three sources with direct knowledge confirmed that the numbers were revealed in a closed session of a House-Senate committee hearing in December. The FBI also declined to say whether it has compiled more up-to-date figures since that time.

“I was surprised and struck by the numbers; they were larger than I expected,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, told NPR. He stopped short of confirming the numbers.

“I know one can say that as a percentage of the millions of people in active military service or working with contractors, the numbers you talk about are a small percentage of the total, but the reality is it only took one man, Nidal Hasan, to kill 13 people at Fort Hood and injure a lot more,” Lieberman said.

English: Major Nidal Malik Hasan, Fort Hood sh...

Hasan was an Army major at Fort Hood in Texas who is charged with opening fire on soldiers in the base’s processing center in November 2009. The rampage is considered the most serious terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Prosecutors say Hasan had been in touch with an American-born radical imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, to ask for spiritual guidance ahead of the shooting; and Awlaki is said to have blessed it. Awlaki was killed in a drone attack in Yemen last year.

Investigators also say Hasan had been displaying signs of increasing radicalization before the shooting took place, but the behavior had not been properly reported. Hasan’s court-martial is set to begin on Aug. 20, and he faces the death penalty.

The FBI compiled its tally of Islamic extremist cases in the military late last year for a joint hearing that Lieberman co-chaired. The hearing was looking at possible threats to military communities inside the United States, and the number of cases was revealed at that time.

About A Dozen Cases Face Full Investigation

The FBI typically divides investigations into three categories: assessment, preliminary investigations, and then full investigations in which agents have enough evidence to justify using all the investigative tools at their disposal. As of last December, there were a dozen cases in that last category.

“This number speaks not only to the reality that there is a problem of violent Islamic extremists in the military, but also that the Department of Defense and the FBI since the Nidal Hassan case are working much more closely together,” said Lieberman.

Officials stressed that the FBI and the Department of Defense track all kinds of extremism within the military community from white supremacists to neo-Nazis, not just Islamic extremists.

But the Fort Hood shooting inspired new reporting procedures aimed at catching plots before they unfold. Since 2001, law enforcement officials have foiled and prosecuted more than 30 plots or attacks against military targets within the United States.

A Conviction Last Month

Just last month, an AWOL Muslim soldier named Naser Abdo was convicted of plotting to attack Fort Hood. Officers found components for an explosive device in Abdo’s hotel room not far from the base.

Abdo told the judge that the plot was supposed to exact some “justice” for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. In an audio recording played during the trial, Abdo said his Islamic faith was part of the reason he planned the attack.

Lieberman says that Abdo actually called out Major Hasan’s name shortly after he was found guilty of conspiring to attack a restaurant just outside Fort Hood where active service members often went with their families. Abdo is expected to be sentenced in July. It is not clear whether his case was one of the cases on the FBI’s list.

Military Bases Considered Likely Targets

Officials say for many aspiring violent jihadis a military base is seen as fair game for an attack. Al-Qaida’s narrative revolves around the idea that America is at war with Islam the world over, and the perception is that the U.S. military is at the forefront of that battle.

Counterterrorism officials say that for many freshly minted jihadists, a military target is an easier choice and easier to justify than targeting a shopping mall or other soft civilian targets — precisely because it is seen as part and parcel of the battle.

“After the Fort Hood shooting, having just one serious case, much less having a dozen, is cause for concern,” says Bruce Hoffman, a professor and counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University and a distinguished scholar at the Wilson Center.

“You have to think about how people in the military community aren’t just your run-of-the-mill jihadis,” Hoffman says. “These are people who have access to guns and to bases and are supposed to have security clearances. This is not the community you want to be radicalizing.”

Read more at NPR

Beyond Stupid: Fort Hood Killings are “Workplace Violence”

Original Post:  12/12/11

By Gadi Adelman via Family Security Matters

English: Major Nidal Malik Hasan, Fort Hood sh...Yes, while Major Nidal Hasan screamed “Allah Akbar” as he shot and killed 14 people in cold blood (14 actually died since 21 year old victim Francheska Velez was 3 months pregnant, making two lives in my book) and wounded 29 others, this act was nothing more than “Workplace Violence”.

Remember the term “Going Postal”? That was workplace violence, but then again, that term all but disappeared since it wasn’t ‘politically correct’.

 

 

So despite the fact that Major Nidal Hasan exchanged as many as 20 emails with Anwar Awlaki, had ‘SOA’, (Soldier Of Allah) on his business cards and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero, it was not terrorism.

Back in June of 2010 I wrote about this when Obama released his National Security Strategy. I explained then that by eliminating certain words from the administrations vocabulary it would lead to this very situation,

Removing words such as “Radical Islam,” “terrorism” and “Jihadist” from national security documents was bad enough; now we are saying we are no longer at war with terrorists. We hope terrorists get the memo.

In the article I quoted John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism who stated in a speech when speaking on the new National Security Strategy,

“The President’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not ‘terrorism’ because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not ‘terror’ because terror is a state of mind and as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

We really shouldn’t be surprised that the Foot Hood Massacre would be classified as “Workplace Violence” when the Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President makes a statement like that.

This all actually goes back to August of 2010 when the Department of Defense released its report on the Fort Hood shooting, on page 4 of the 23 page report,

Recommendation 2.6 a,b: Update Polices To Address Workplace Violence

But even before the DOD report was the Pentagon report (Lessons from Fort Hood) of January 2010. I had written about that as well,

The 86 page report by the Pentagon never even mentions his motives even though he screamed “Allah Akbar” as he shot his fellow soldiers in cold blood. What’s more is that the words “Islam” or “Muslim” are never mentioned in 86 pages. Not even once.

So why does it matter you may ask. As I have explained in the past, the importance of words goes far beyond the correct terms. By telling our Intel agencies and law enforcement people what words they can and cannot use creates a very dangerous situation.

Our law enforcement people know, understand and what’s more want to stop the threat of terrorism, I know this because I have lectured, taught and trained many of them. The problem is that the hands of our law enforcement people are the ones being handcuffed.

Imagine, as an Intel agent sitting down to write a report warning of a possible attack on one of our Military bases here in the U.S. This report would be for all law enforcement nationwide about an individual that has been emailing back and forth with someone in a terrorist organization. But, you are not allowed to use the words “Terrorist”, “Terror”, “Islam”, “Islamist”, “Radical”, “Jihad” or “Jihadist”. How can you even describe what may be without those words?

Terrorism became “Man-made catastrophe” which evidently has now become “Workplace Violence”.

Imagine how that warning would read,

We have Intel that a pending man-made workplace violent catastrophe may take place on a Military base here in the U.S.

We cannot elaborate as to the source other than to say some emails were received by an individual who may carry out this violence.

We cannot elaborate as to where the emails were sent from or who they were received by nor can we say what part of the world this threat stems from.

We cannot say if the individual that may carry out this violence is male or female, nor can we give you a description, age or ethnicity as that might lead to stereotyping.

But remember we here at Homeland Security are on top of it and warning you of all possible threats.

It sounds crazy, perhaps, but as I wrote back in August, 2010,

Now, we have the Obama administration, who in their infinite wisdom has removed each and every word from the National Security Strategy that in any way, shape or form refers to Islam. No longer will anyone that works for the Government be allowed to say, use or write “Islamic terrorist”, “Islamic extremist”, “Jihad”, “Jihadist”, “ Islamist”… you get the point. I am sure the term “Muslim maniac” is out as well, even though that wasn’t specifically mentioned.

By not allowing our Intel and law enforcement to identify the enemy, there is no way to even begin to defend ourselves against it. Perhaps that is too much commonsense for our current administration, but it is a fact nonetheless.

The main problem now is the targeting of military personal and their families here in the U.S. The number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly. There have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009.

Just this past Wednesday during a joint Senate hearing in which the classification of “workplace violence” came up again, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) stated,

“Military communities in the U.S. have become the most desirable and vulnerable targets for the violent homegrown Islamist extremists seeking to kill Americans in their homeland.”

According to a report on Fox News,

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

The article went on to quote Sen. Joe Lieberman,

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a “direct target of violent Islamist extremism” within the United States.

“The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists’ scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting,” Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday’s hearing.

Darius Long, the father of Army Pvt. William Andrew Long, who was shot and killed at an Arkansas military recruitment center in 2009 summed it up best in my opinion,

“My faith in government is diminished. It invents euphemisms … Little Rock is a drive by and Fort Hood is just workplace violence. The truth is denied.”

Yes Mr. Long you are correct and if the Obama administration had its way, 9/11 would be labeled “vandalism”.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be heard every Thursday night at 8PM est. on his own radio show “America Akbar” on Blog Talk Radio. He can be reached through his website gadiadelman.com.

The Left’s Seven Tragic Terror Lies

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

 

by RALPH PETERS at FSM:

If they did not put our troops, our citizens and our country at risk, the Left’s fantastic lies about terror and terrorists would be hilarious. The Left’s self-righteous nonsense in this sphere has no grounding in empirical or historical reality, but, then, reality has long been a greater threat to the Left than Islamist fanatics (the last thing any Leftie wants to do is to face the vast human wastage generated by the addictive, enervating and morally debilitating hook-the-poor social programs of the last five decades).

So, when it comes to addressing the real and deadly terrorist threat, the American left responds in the best Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Chavista and community-organizer traditions: When the facts aren’t palatable, make up new “facts.” And political correctness has worked its poisonous tentacles so deeply into the American body politic that not even our generals challenge the ludicrous claims the Left hurls at us in its neo-Bolshevik bullying mode of shouting down every last unwelcome truth.

Of course, the left’s lies are countless, but the hard left has mastered the art of reducing the most complex human challenges to bumper-sticker slogans as nonsensical as they are reassuring to the herd (the wildly counter-factual prize probably goes to a leftie favorite, “War never changes anything.” On the contrary, war has always changed a great deal, which is why we have wars). These happy-face mantras never rise above intellectual flatulence, but the massed sheep on the Left enjoy the aroma (“Yes, we can!”).

The problem, of course, is that many of our national leaders have been brainwashed with the same slogans. The Left has mastered another technique dictators forged long ago: Repeat a lie often enough and it will be taken as truth. And, of course, our media play along.

So let’s give the slogan-hucksters a brief time-out and dissect just seven of their favorite lines:

One: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs. Nope. Killing terrorists turns them into dead terrorists. Of all the terrorists we’ve killed since 9/11, how many are celebrated as martyrs in the Muslim world today? Remember the Butcher of Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? The Left solemnly warned us that killing him would turn him into a martyr and mobilize the Muslim world against us. Didn’t happen. Instead, his fellow Arabs spit upon his grave. And what about the big lad, Comrade Osama? We heard no end of grave pronunciamentos from “public intellectuals”and other fellow travelers that killing him would not only make him a martyr, but lead to an explosion of Muslim fury. Well, check it out: Not a single serious demonstration marked the one-year anniversary of his death (by the way, I’m growing confused: Were any SEALs actually in bin Laden’s compound, or did President Obama take down Osama alone, with his bare hands? That seems to be the White House position of late).

Killing terrorists doesn’t create problems. It eliminates specific problems and reduces others. What creates problems is capturing terrorists. That’s when they become martyrs, inspiring kidnappings and other attacks to free them, and leading Leftists to champion them as “prisoners of conscience” and victims of vile American oppression. Witness the recent courtroom circus at Guantanamo, where monstrous terrorists (men who should have been dead at least eight years ago) have been granted a global platform for their cause.

As a former intelligence officer, I sympathize with those who believe we need more interrogations, but I’m still for killing every terrorist we can find right on the spot-until a grown-up president revives serious clandestine operations in which the CIA can capture, strenuously interrogate then execute known terrorists without it ever becoming public knowledge. The only problem with waterboarding is that somebody told.

Two: We can’t kill our way out of this. Actually, we’ve been killing our way out of “this” with great success. In fact, killing terrorists has been the only thing that has worked. And one thing Obama-terrified of a terror attack on his watch-has gotten right has been to increase the number of lethal attacks on terrorists and to favor killing them over capturing them (Obama did learn the real lesson of Guantanamo-kill, don’t capture–although he isn’t going to inform his base). Had Bush killed as many terrorists with drone strikes and special ops as Obama has, the Left would have cried out for him to be tried as a war criminal. And what do you think Obama’s base would have had to say if Bush had authorized killing Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen? (Just to be clear, I’m glad Awlaki’s dead.)

Leftists (see Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.) don’t really object to war and violence. They just want to be in charge of it. For the left, it’s rarely about what’s done, but about who’s doing it: The left’s moral compass realigns on command.

We have 2,000 years of documented history of insurgencies led by religious fanatics (in every religion, by the way). In those two millennia, there is not a single example of a faith-fueled rebellion or terrorist movement that did not require extensive bloodshed to defeat it. Not one example in 2,000 years. And, indeed, resolute powers proved very, very good at killing their way out of it.

Three: Terrorists have rights. Sorry, that isn’t true, either. Legally, an insurgent who does not wear a distinguishing uniform, emblem or badge is an “unlawful combatant” under the much-cited, but rarely read, Laws of Land Warfare, including the Geneva and Hague Conventions. An unlawful combatant may be executed on the spot or, if you want to put a coat of wax on the paint job, after a quick tribunal in the field. We have invented rights for terrorists. And government and even military lawyers have been only too glad to go along, some because of ambition, others because they are cowed by the commissars of political correctness who now dominate our legal system at every level below the Supreme Court.

As for “human rights for terrorists,” that’s a judgment call. And my call is “No effing way, dude.” When a human being chooses to become a terrorist and massacres the innocent, he or she exits the human race.

Four: Formal trials will show them the superiority of our system of justice. You are a no-go at this station, as the drill sergeants used to say. Take yet another look at the Gitmo fiasco: You think those prisoners respect our system of justice? They’re gaming it brilliantly, turning it into an international mockery. Or are we to think that our judicial system, military or civilian, will so impress other terrorists that they’ll abandon their zealotry and head for the nearest Burger King? Perhaps we’re supposed to believe that these terror trials (when we finally get around to them) will somehow deter hardened terrorists, striking fear into their black little hearts? Tell me how it deters a hardcore fanatic to find out that, if the Americans capture him, he’ll get the first dental care of his entire life, medical care better than that provided to many law-abiding U.S. taxpayers, special halal (religiously correct) meals, free legal representation, endless appeals, plentiful recreation, and communal incarceration with his fellow perverts on a tropical beach? That’s supposed to be Club Dread? U.S.-citizen convicts in our Federal prisons get far fewer privileges than terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans. And the Left still complains about their treatment (not so much now that Obama’s president, though-although he was going to close Gitmo in one year). Our legal system has about as much deterrent value against fanatical terrorists as a Hershey Bar.

And did I mention the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars devoted to incarcerating these mass-murderers every year? We’re not a shining example of justice. We’re a laughingstock.

Five: The only path to peace is negotiations. I was bewildered, yet again, when our president, in his recent re-election-campaign speech at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan said, first, that we would never allow the return of the Taliban to power, then, minutes later, that we secretly have been negotiating with the Taliban to bring them into the Afghan government. Even in Vietnam, we displayed more decency than that. But let me clarify: My bewilderment did not stem from our president’s shameless duplicity (for political reasons, he launched his disastrous surge, now, for other political reasons, he’s ending his surge and “fixing” the problem he himself created-Obama has the integrity of an offshore telemarketer selling timeshares). No, my bewilderment stemmed from the media’s utter failure to call the president on this blatant contradiction. But, then, our president can stop the sun in its course, walk on water and heal the sick all at once, as far the media are concerned.so he surely can perform the miracle of simultaneously keeping the Taliban out of Kabul and welcoming them back to Kabul. Much easier than turning water into a nice little unoaked chardonnay.

Negotiations are the opium of the diplomats. Again, in 2,000 years of factual history of religion-fueled insurgencies, not one has been quelled through negotiations. The basic problem is that fanatics on a mission from their god do not feel obligated to keep promises to unbelievers-even if they are cornered into making promises for tactical reasons or just to buy time. In political and even some ethnic insurgencies, negotiations may have a place. But in religion-driven uprisings and terror movements, negotiations are one hundred per cent worthless. You have to kill the buggers.

Which brings us to:

SixIt’s not about religion.  This is one of the  biggest hoots of all time.  Our enemies are jumping up and down, telling us  that their every action is done in the name of their god, and our response is  “Oh, they don’t really mean that!”  Even our military is so pathetically  cowed by the politically correct atmosphere in Washington that the generals play  along while the troops pay the price.  A good rule is that, when your enemy  tells you what he’s fighting for, willingly sacrifices his life for it, and  attracts recruits by preaching it, you will benefit from listening to what he’s  saying.  Our enemies do, indeed, know what they’re fighting for.   We’re the ones who don’t.  Oh, and you don’t become a suicide bomber  because you expect a pay raise.

This is not a religious war for us, but that’s one more factor that makes the  struggle asymmetrical.  We’re fighting for our values and to protect  ourselves.  Our enemies believe they’re on a mission from their god to  punish us for our sins, heresies and international hamburger promotions.   Islamist terrorists even justify the slaughter of their ostensibly less-devout  co-religionists in the name of purifying the faith or other equally ugly  rationales (al Qaeda has slaughtered far more Muslims than it has killed  Westerners).  Yet, we insist that the problem is just local politics, or  underdevelopment, or social alienation, or childhood trauma, blah, blah,  blah.

Islam as a whole is not attacking us, nor is every Muslim consumed with  dreams of anti-Western jihad.  But we have been and are being attacked by a  lethal, utterly committed minority of Islamist fanatics who believe their  actions are sanctioned and required by their deity.  If we can’t even face  that, we’re not only fools, but cowards.

One of the funniest jokes-within-the-joke on this subject has been Western,  post-Christian commentators claiming that what al Qaeda does isn’t really jihad.  News flash: We don’t get to determine what is or isn’t  jihad.  Muslims do.  And even Muslims who despise al Qaeda acknowledge  them as jihadis.  It’s as if the late Monsieur bin Laden had tried to tell  us which Christians qualify as born again.

Seven: It’s about us.  This claim arises from the  perverse narcissism of the Left that revels in the notion that all of the  world’s ills are the fault of America, capitalism and those of us who actually  pay taxes.  But for al Qaeda and that ailing organization’s deformed  offspring, we’re just a convenient, distant and instantly recognizable  symbol.  After all, you couldn’t really claim that Luxembourg was the Great  Satan and attract many followers.  Jihad goes better with Coke.

Historically, our country’s behavior has not been flawless.  But only  God is perfect.  And, taken as a whole, our influence on history and  humankind has been overwhelmingly positive.  But the American Left, the  global Left and Islamist terrorists have one thing in common: They cannot  tolerate or endure our success.  For the Left, we’re intolerable because  we’ve exposed their ideologies as worthless (which doesn’t stop them from  conducting further experiments on the poor), while, for the Islamists, we’ve  embarrassed their faith by triumphing in every sphere of human endeavor, while  Allah’s children still can’t build a decent bicycle.

The problems that give rise to Islamist terror are home-grown: The  comprehensive failure of a civilization that cannot escape the deadening  strictures of a still-immature faith that has not gotten beyond the  late-medieval Christian age of theological scholasticism, obsession with the  outward manifestations of faith and public conformity, and superstition.   In Western terms, al Qaeda’s burning witches (although, to be fully accurate,  the witch-burnings were a reactionary response to the later stress the  Renaissance placed on traditional cultures.but, then, why should I care about  accuracy, when the Left shuns facts like the Plague).

Humiliated by their own massive failure, Islamist fanatics take refuge in a  vision of a Muslim golden age that never really existed.  Among left-wing  fellow travelers in our own country, the terrorists’ benign counterparts are the  vortex-visiting, crystal-clutching, part-time-barista believers that Atlantis  will rise again and all wrongs shall be righted (and practitioners of Tantric  Yoga will live in rent-free condos).  Failed human beings and failed  civilizations need someone to blame and something greater than themselves to  believe in.  And Uncle Sam is the number one choice of lazy minds  everywhere for the name on the blame-line, while aberrant religious faith,  whether manifested by incendiary devices or too much sandalwood incense, is the  default position for the children of failure.

Or course, facts, evidence and logic don’t really matter to the Left.   The fundamental draw of the Left is that it promises an escape from reality (and  from hard work).  But even if we succeed in demolishing each one of the  myths listed above, the Left would still have an eighth, indestructible,  all-purpose myth to fall back on:

“It’s all Bush’s fault.”

Read more: Family Security Matters

Muslim Children in America are Being Taught to Hate

By Dave  Gaubatz 

In the last five years I have personally visited over 250 Islamic Centers, Mosques, and Islamic Schools throughout America. The goal of my research has been to determine what Islamic leaders are teaching the young and innocent Muslim children. The findings are abhorrent, sad, unbelievable, frightening, and most disturbing is the fact our government is keeping this dangerous fact from the American people. Muslim children attending mosques and Islamic schools are being taught to hate America, our government, our military personnel, and its non Muslim population. In this article I will identify three significant mosques in America that are leading the way in teaching Muslim children to hate and to influence them to commit violent acts inside our country.

In America we have been programmed by the media and political leaders to believe violent teachings of Islam are only being taught to children in Palestine. We have watched the Muslim Palestinian children spew their taught hatred of the Israelis. What Americans are not being shown (due to political correctness) are that Muslim children throughout the world and specifically inside America are being taught violence and hatred in mosques, Islamic schools and Islamic Centers.

 

Children as young as 7 years old are being taught that to assimilate with America is to disrespect and dishonor Islam. They are being taught our military personnel are the enemies of Islam and it is justifiable to kill anyone who dishonors or oppresses the Islamic ideology.

 

During my research I have identified numerous mosques that are teaching young Muslim children to hate America and are leading them to commit future violent acts against our country and innocent people. I would like to focus on three such mosques. They are:

    1. Dar al Hijrah, Falls Church, VA
    2. Al Farooq, Nashville, TN
    3. At Taqwa, Brooklyn, NY

Anwar al-Awlaki was an imam at the Dar al Hijrah Mosque from January 2001 until 2002. Three of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, attended some of Awlaki’s sermons at this mosque.

My researchers and I spent several weeks at the Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, VA. Almost immediately we were informed to obtain our study material from the Halaco Bookstore which is located nearby the mosque. It was very apparent upon entering the store and reviewing the materials that the bookstore provides materials for the Sunni (Wahhabi) Muslim population across the U.S. and specifically for Dar Al Hijrah. I was able to spend many hours talking with store personnel and was invited to the home of one employee to discuss Islamic issues.

There is a large section in the store dedicated to the education of the Muslim children. I discovered materials that are being sent to Islamic schools across America. Much of the material deals with Sharia and Jihad. One of the DVD’s and books I obtained was by an Islamic scholar Ahmad Sakr. Sakr travels the U.S. visiting Islamic schools and educates them in Sharia law. I have watched one of his videos in which he tells the young children our government is evil and not to follow the laws of our country and Americas government leaders will all go to hell.

The material provided by Dar Al Hijrah and their selected Islamic bookstore also was filled with violent Jihad. There were manuals informing the readers how to destroy America and how to kill anyone who oppresses Islam. They are told how to obtain weapons to include weapons of mass destruction. Although all of the above is very disturbing and should (and actually is) against the law, the Muslim leaders of Falls Church, Val are allowed by our government to indoctrinate the Muslim children into future violence against our country. The next mosque (Al Farooq/Nashville, TN) is even more disturbing.

The Al Farooq mosque in South Nashville.

My research team and I spent two weeks at the Al Farooq mosque in Nashville, TN. The mosque was Sunni and had the typical violent books and DVD’s/videos pertaining to the overthrow of any government system that oppresses Islam. They also had numerous teachings from current Islamic leaders operating in America who are teaching the Muslim population to hate our country and its people. Although this should frighten all concerned citizens, there was even sadder and disturbing intelligence collected at this mosque. Lately we have all read about the child brides and forced marriages in Afghanistan and in Saudi Arabia. What most Americans do not realize is that child marriages are occurring throughout our country and specifically in Nashville, TN.

One young 7 year old Muslim girl at Al Farooq talked to our researcher about being beaten (MP3 file) by her Islamic leaders and being married (MP3 file) to a Muslim man. I reported the matter to the Nashville authorities but almost from the beginning they were reluctant to intercede because this was a religious institution and more importantly to them it was Islamic. Senior law enforcement authorities of the Nashville police department informed me they were afraid of being sued by Islamic organizations such as CAIR if they got involved and it would be a political nightmare to get anything done at the mosque. What bothered me most of all is the fact I contacted Islamic organizations to help this innocent Muslim child and they also balked. This reinforced to me that Islamic law (Sharia) is alive and very active inside our country, to include child marriages. The next mosque I am going to discuss is led by an Islamic leader I have previously described as the most dangerous man in America.

At Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, NY is led by an Islamic scholar who is not only a major fundraiser for CAIR (terrorist supporter) but travels throughout the U.S. teaching his violent ideology of Islam. He is Imam Siraj Wahhaj. For those who have never visited the Islamic district of Brooklyn it would come to a surprise to many that the area around At Taqwa is similar to the Wahhabi land of Saudi Arabia. I have previously described Wahhaj as the most dangerous man in America. I have reviewed hundreds of his Friday (Juma) mosque lectures.

In this speech (MP3) he tells his followers that around the world Muslims will wake up and say

“I don’t want to follow the way of the colonial masters any more. I want the Sharia. I want Islam. We want to be ruled by Islam. And all we have to do is go back to that golden generation.”

He routinely called America an evil country and is a strong leader in developing Sharia law inside our country. His violent lectures are available to the adult and child Muslims throughout America.

“Those who struggle for Allah, it doesn’t matter what kind of weapons, I’m telling you it doesn’t matter! You don’t need nuclear weapons or even guns! If you have faith in Allah and a knife!! If Allah wants you to win, you will win! Because Allah is the only one who fights. And when his hand is over your hand. whoever is at war against my friends, I declare war on them.”

From a video by Sirah Wahhaj called “The Afghanistan Jihad,” Toronto, Canada, of a sermon from Sept. 28, 1991.

Siraj Wahhaj.

“If we go to war, brothers and sisters – and one day we will, believe me – that’s why you’re commanded [to fight in] jihad. When Allah demands us to fight, we’re not stopping and nobody’s stopping us.”

Sermon by Siraj Wahhaj entitled “Stand Up to Justice,” delivered on May 8, 1992 and distributed as a video.

Islamic teachings such as this are what led the Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood Murderer, to commit his acts.

Although I have only focused on three mosques that lead the way, introducing Muslim children to violence and hatred, there are hundreds scattered across the U.S. Few states are immune from this growing threat. The violence spewed by these Islamic leaders will ultimately lead to more violence in the name of Islam. I have witnessed firsthand the violence being taught. There are numerous such Islamic centers in NC, FL, VA, NY, and CA.

Unless Muslim parents decry the violent teachings of Islam to their children, there will continue to be more and more Siraj Wahhaj type Islamic leaders in America. The ultimate result will be the suffering of our country as we now see in France, Britain, and Canada.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dave Gaubatz spent 20 years as an active duty USAF (Special Agent/OSI), 3.5 years as a civilian 1811 Federal Agent, trained by the U.S. State Department in Arabic, and was the first U.S. Federal Agent to enter Iraq in 2003. He is also a counterterrorism counterintelligence officer. He is co-author of the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America. His website is www.muslimmafiacomics.blogspot.com, and also http://www.wearenotafraid.blogspot.com/, and he can be reached at davegaubatz@gmail.com.

Beyond Stupid: Fort Hood Killings are “Workplace Violence”

By Gadi Adelman via Family Security Matters

English: Major Nidal Malik Hasan, Fort Hood sh...Yes, while Major Nidal Hasan screamed “Allah Akbar” as he shot and killed 14 people in cold blood (14 actually died since 21 year old victim Francheska Velez was 3 months pregnant, making two lives in my book) and wounded 29 others, this act was nothing more than “Workplace Violence”.

Remember the term “Going Postal”? That was workplace violence, but then again, that term all but disappeared since it wasn’t ‘politically correct’.

 

So despite the fact that Major Nidal Hasan exchanged as many as 20 emails with Anwar Awlaki, had ‘SOA’, (Soldier Of Allah) on his business cards and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero, it was not terrorism.

Back in June of 2010 I wrote about this when Obama released his National Security Strategy. I explained then that by eliminating certain words from the administrations vocabulary it would lead to this very situation,

Removing words such as “Radical Islam,” “terrorism” and “Jihadist” from national security documents was bad enough; now we are saying we are no longer at war with terrorists. We hope terrorists get the memo.

In the article I quoted John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism who stated in a speech when speaking on the new National Security Strategy,

“The President’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not ‘terrorism’ because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not ‘terror’ because terror is a state of mind and as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

We really shouldn’t be surprised that the Foot Hood Massacre would be classified as “Workplace Violence” when the Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President makes a statement like that.

This all actually goes back to August of 2010 when the Department of Defense released its report on the Fort Hood shooting, on page 4 of the 23 page report,

Recommendation 2.6 a,b: Update Polices To Address Workplace Violence

But even before the DOD report was the Pentagon report (Lessons from Fort Hood) of January 2010. I had written about that as well,

The 86 page report by the Pentagon never even mentions his motives even though he screamed “Allah Akbar” as he shot his fellow soldiers in cold blood. What’s more is that the words “Islam” or “Muslim” are never mentioned in 86 pages. Not even once.

So why does it matter you may ask. As I have explained in the past, the importance of words goes far beyond the correct terms. By telling our Intel agencies and law enforcement people what words they can and cannot use creates a very dangerous situation.

Our law enforcement people know, understand and what’s more want to stop the threat of terrorism, I know this because I have lectured, taught and trained many of them. The problem is that the hands of our law enforcement people are the ones being handcuffed.

Imagine, as an Intel agent sitting down to write a report warning of a possible attack on one of our Military bases here in the U.S. This report would be for all law enforcement nationwide about an individual that has been emailing back and forth with someone in a terrorist organization. But, you are not allowed to use the words “Terrorist”, “Terror”, “Islam”, “Islamist”, “Radical”, “Jihad” or “Jihadist”. How can you even describe what may be without those words?

Terrorism became “Man-made catastrophe” which evidently has now become “Workplace Violence”.

Imagine how that warning would read,

We have Intel that a pending man-made workplace violent catastrophe may take place on a Military base here in the U.S.

We cannot elaborate as to the source other than to say some emails were received by an individual who may carry out this violence.

We cannot elaborate as to where the emails were sent from or who they were received by nor can we say what part of the world this threat stems from.

We cannot say if the individual that may carry out this violence is male or female, nor can we give you a description, age or ethnicity as that might lead to stereotyping.

But remember we here at Homeland Security are on top of it and warning you of all possible threats.

It sounds crazy, perhaps, but as I wrote back in August, 2010,

Now, we have the Obama administration, who in their infinite wisdom has removed each and every word from the National Security Strategy that in any way, shape or form refers to Islam. No longer will anyone that works for the Government be allowed to say, use or write “Islamic terrorist”, “Islamic extremist”, “Jihad”, “Jihadist”, “ Islamist”… you get the point. I am sure the term “Muslim maniac” is out as well, even though that wasn’t specifically mentioned.

By not allowing our Intel and law enforcement to identify the enemy, there is no way to even begin to defend ourselves against it. Perhaps that is too much commonsense for our current administration, but it is a fact nonetheless.

The main problem now is the targeting of military personal and their families here in the U.S. The number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly. There have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009.

Just this past Wednesday during a joint Senate hearing in which the classification of “workplace violence” came up again, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) stated,

“Military communities in the U.S. have become the most desirable and vulnerable targets for the violent homegrown Islamist extremists seeking to kill Americans in their homeland.”

According to a report on Fox News,

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

The article went on to quote Sen. Joe Lieberman,

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a “direct target of violent Islamist extremism” within the United States.

“The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists’ scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting,” Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday’s hearing.

Darius Long, the father of Army Pvt. William Andrew Long, who was shot and killed at an Arkansas military recruitment center in 2009 summed it up best in my opinion,

“My faith in government is diminished. It invents euphemisms … Little Rock is a drive by and Fort Hood is just workplace violence. The truth is denied.”

Yes Mr. Long you are correct and if the Obama administration had its way, 9/11 would be labeled “vandalism”.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be heard every Thursday night at 8PM est. on his own radio show “America Akbar” on Blog Talk Radio. He can be reached through his website gadiadelman.com.