Many in Puget Sound have probably forgotten that the original Sept. 11 plans of al-Qaeda's Khalid Shaikh Mohammed involved a commercial jet headed straight for Seattle's own Bank Of America Tower (now Columbia Center), as the Seattle Times reported in 2004. Luckily, we've only gotten freelance jihadist Naveed Haq since then, terrorist fatality-wise. But it's early yet. Today, the Seattle Times reports North Seattle residents in zip codes 98115 and 98125 will tomorrow be receiving simulated bio-terror attack antidotes via mail in an exercise sponsored by Public Health - Seattle & King County. Not so coincidentally, the paper today also notes the head of British intelligence reports they're tracking 30 terrorist plots involving 1,600 mostly-homegrown misanthropes, and have busted five deadly capers since summer of last year. The NYT reports tonight that Prime Minister Tony Blair echoes her concerns, saying the effort is one that will last "generations."
The simulated bio-warfare exercise involving Seattle residents may strike some as absurd fear-mongering, but look at the local government sponsors. Not Republicans exactly, are they? And, one must wonder, who exactly would the terrorist dispersers of deadly bio-hazards in Seattle be? Where in Puget Sound would they be residing - if that's where they would now reside - and what's their cover? It's uncomfortable to ponder, but, uncomfortably, this is the world we now inhabit. As demonstrated by the news today from England; where the harder the institutional multi-culti cultists try to be inclusive and "tolerant," the worse it all gets.
Test runs like tomorrow's comprise response strategies; the other piece is prevention and detection, as the Brits and we well know. One good approach here and elsewhere involves "human intelligence," such as impeccably legit Arabic-speaking moles infiltrating certain local mosques where, say, speakers lecture for posterity to attendees and via MP3s in Arabic on "Claims By The Kuffar That The Prophet PBUH Fabricated The Quraan."
The title by itself isn't exactly a declaration of jihad, but a translation of the whole thing would be smart. Dunno about you, but I've got some real issues with that word "kuffar," or "dirty unbeliever" (read all the way through, here). Especially coming from a speaker at a suburban Seattle mosque. Or do we just worry about fundamentalists if they're white Christians?
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 10, 2006 08:28 PM | Email ThisThe larger point in my post, which you did not dispute, is that there is cause for concern about Islamist terrorists secreted within the populace of Puget Sound. One reasonable place for the proper authorities to investigate would be local mosques, which in England have figured so prominently into hatred and terrorism. But here we are terrified of being tagged with the epithet of "Islamophobe" for suggesting greater urgency in uncovering the sleeper Islamist terrorists among us. Yet they are certainly here.
Posted by: Matt R. on November 10, 2006 10:40 PMThese mosques are funded at least in part by the Saudi government for the mission of spreading islam (they are quite open about the mission). Amazing that here in America we would allow anyone to "spread" the culture or religion of a place like Saudi Arabia. I know, we also allow neo-nazis to practice free speach, so the same rights should be extended to muslims. But we should acknowledge in public and in our schools that the two ideologies are equally evil and not on the same level as other truelly spiritual religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, any form of Christianity, Judaism, Bahaiism, Zoroastrianism, Mandaeism, Yarsan, etc.)
Posted by: hi on November 10, 2006 11:17 PMwww.westernresistance.com
and
www.faithfreedom.org
Posted by: hi on November 10, 2006 11:20 PMWe should take a lesson on how the KKK was infiltrated in the 60's. Could there have been human intelligence obtained from FBI "moles" attending services in the local places of worship? Gasp!
Posted by: Shaun on November 11, 2006 07:56 AMHow much is this costing? Today's a holiday with no mail delivery so I assume any mail carriers working would get time and a half or perhaps even double time. And the extra police officers probably the same. Of course that doesn't matter to liberals who think the only reason citizens exist is to be an endless fountain of money for their idiotic programs.
I live in zip code 98125. Thanks for the warning Matt.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 11, 2006 09:11 AMThe Democratic party lost for so many years, I truly do not think they understood, despite all the talk, that they were going to win. They ran on a platform of "We are not Bush" "The War in Iraq is BAD" Our soldiers are losing their lives". They won...... now what?
Imagine you are a fly on the wall an there is a meeting of the mindless going on:
Nancy Pelosi: Ok folks, we won...yeahhhhhhhhh!!!!!! Now what the HELL are we going to do about Iraq? Does anyone have any ideas?
Dick Durbin: We leave, we get our soldiers the hell out of there.
Hillary Cinton: We CAN'T just walk away, if we do that we are then known as the party that lost the war. You people are going to cost me the 2008 election.
Nancy Pelosi: Hillary, we have to leave, thats what we promised, the problem is HOW do we leave without Iraq going into a meltdown, being completely taken over by al-Qaeda and having every life lost after we leave on OUR heads??????
John Kerry: I will tell you what we need to do.....
Nancy, Hillary, Reid , and Durbin all scream....SHUT up, you don't say a damn word!!!!!
Kerry sits back down and puts in the corner, mumbling.
Nancy Pelosi, her voice shriller: What about sending more troops in to get the situation resolved?
Hillary: SITUATION??? Its a WAR stupid!!! You cannot go around spouting about Iraq not being a war, but a "situation" to be resolved". Do you have ANY idea how stupid that sounded?????? My god, I am never going to win in 2008 if I have to carry all you people along.
Nancy Pelosi: Those times publications SAID....
Hillary cuts her off: Yes and ABOUT that, do you not understand that those papers are written by USA Today and are NOT miltary publications??????????
Pelosi: No I didn't when I said it.
Hillary: Maybe you shouldn't speak without knowing then.
Reid: Ladies, ladies, this is getting us nowhere.
Kerry mutters from the corner: Its all that stupid Bush's fault. Our soldiers are over there terrorizing women and....
Nancy AND Hillary to Kerry: SHUT THE HELL UP, haven't you made us seem anti-military enough?
Pelosi voice even shriller yet: We stay we are screwed, we leave we are screwed...god I need a joint.
Durbin: Its Rove's Fault!!!! They set us up.
Pelosi, nodding like a bobble head: Yesssssss, they set us up.
Hillary: You know, they KNEW the war in Iraq was unpopular and yet the last weeks of stumping, they pushed it and insisted it was a war to be won......... instead of focusing on other issues, they KEPT talking about the war, over and over and over.....almost as if they wanted to lose.
Pelosi: What ARE you talking about?
Hillary: They could have pushed our tax agenda and not pushed so hard about the war right before the elections. They could have stumped harder on OUR not producing a "plan" for Iraq....they could have shaped the issues on their campaign trail, but they didn't, the focused completely on the war, every campaign stop, every speech they made sure to mention the war....
Pelosi: They set us up? They put this in OUR lap on purpose?
Hillary: You said it yourself...we stay we're screwed, we leave and civil war breaks out we're screwed, we send more troops in we are screwed publicly and branded liars.
Hillary starts rubbing her temples.
Pelosi, Durbin, Reid and Kerry all sit thinking about that, blank looks on their faces.
From the doorway Bush and Rove stick their heads in the door and screams: NOVEMBER SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then laughing they head on down the hallway, laughing harder as Hillary SCREAMS..... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Scene fades out with Hillary yanking her hair out, Pelosi banging herself in the head with her brand new gavel and the men muttering incoherently.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is how the Republicans set the stage to win the 2008 presidential elections due to Karl Roves genius.
Ok, seriously, I figured everyone needed a little comedic relief. The point though is this: No matter what the Democratic party does RIGHT NOW, they are screwed. They were so busy saying staying the course was not a plan, so busy screaming about every life lost and THEY could do better, they have "fresh ideas". Now they have to produce those fresh, new ideas... they have to produce something that hasn't been tried yet and doesn't include leaving before Iraq can sustain itself, or they will be branded as a party of losers, of defeatists.
If it works, then what they call "president Bush's" war, is won and Bush is seen as a hero for having the courage to stand up to terror. If it doesn't then the Democrats will have been shown to the world as a party that could not win, could not produce after all their hype about having a plan.
The loser in all this? Hillary Clinton in 2008.
The End.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 11, 2006 09:54 AM1. They are Islamic.
2. They seek to spread their religion.
3. They invite speakers who rebut arguments that their prophet fabricated their holy book. (Other works in this subversive series include "Importance of giving charity" and other alarming topics.)
4. They sometimes speak in a language that Matt doesn't understand.
5. Their language has a word that describes the class of people who do not share their faith.
Given the known paucity of Arabic-speaking resources within our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, I think a serious approach to terrorism would find a better use for these resources than spying on suburban churchgoers simply because they are Islamic.
Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with investigating Islamic organizations for which there is some evidence of subversive activity. But Matt's piece provides no evidence of this sort. He just asks us to fear the presence of local mosques because they are, uh, Islamic.
Posted by: scottd on November 11, 2006 10:56 AMI don't think that's what Matt meant. It's easy to twist words and play the race or religion card.
Is there or isn't there an issue with Ismamic terrorism in the real world, scodttd?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 11, 2006 11:13 AMBasically Matt's piece says:
1. There are Islamic terrorists in the world.
2. There are mosques in our neighborhoods full of Muslims.
3. Therefore, the local mosques need to be infiltrated.
If there's any more to his piece, let me know what it is.
Posted by: scottd on November 11, 2006 11:23 AMNow, answer my question.
Posted by: scottd on November 11, 2006 11:28 AMI'm asking you to defend your statement that I've twisted his words by pointing out what I've missed in my summary of his argument.
After your snarky remark about me ignoring your question, you slink away without answering mine.
Posted by: scottd on November 11, 2006 12:13 PMIf we shouldn't be concerned tell us why?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 11, 2006 12:28 PMBill: What a thin skin you have! I'll direct you to your comment at 18 and ask how my response is substantially different. I have at least offered you the courtesy of answering your question. I've also asked you to defend your accusation that I've twisted Matt's words by showing where I have done that. So far, you have nothing.
Not a surprise, but I thought I'd just point that out for the folks watching at home.
Posted by: scottd on November 11, 2006 12:34 PMimpeccably legit Arabic-speaking moles infiltrating certain local mosques
How is that twisting his words? And, my question still remains, how has he justified this infiltration with anything other than the fact that the members of the mosques are muslim?
We don't have many Arabic-speaking law enforcement agents, but there are a lot of mosques out there. How is this an effective use of our resources?
Please think about what I've said. If you can spot anywhere where I've distorted Matt's argument, I'd really be interested in hearing about it, but for now, I have to run.
Posted by: scottd on November 11, 2006 01:12 PMWearily, I think you are misinterpreting what Matt is saying here.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 11, 2006 01:24 PMAgain, please re-read Matt's post. You might find that you both agree.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 11, 2006 01:54 PMI listened to just one sermon. Guess what, the speaker critisized Denmark's freedom of speech, condoned violent reactions, but then asked his followers not to react violently. After all, he said, Denmark is a country that permits homosexuality. In fact all the nordic countries permit homosexuality, thus they are all a bunch of animals not to be respected as human beings- so who cares what they say about muhammed.
Gee- do you think those are hateful remarks? Do they have a place in Seattle/Bellevue?
It's fair to say you shouldn't attack them without hearing their sermons, but I would caution you against defending them so much without having heard their sermons.
Posted by: hi on November 11, 2006 03:40 PMNow I am worried.
Posted by: Tom Rekdal on November 11, 2006 04:08 PMscottd, I'm glad to read that if a group of Islamic facists in a mosque plot to burn the Jewish Community Center you don't want the FBI to infiltrate their group.
How multi-cultural of you.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on November 11, 2006 10:07 PM