November 10, 2006
JihadWorld: Coming To A Nearby Theatre Soon?
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 This
1. Brits currently tracking 30 terrorist plots. And the Left says terror is no big deal. It IS a big deal. A very BIG deal. Rs get it.
2. Pardon the pun, but this will most likely "blow up" in the faces of the Dems.
3. Just a quick aside, Matt, but do you also take offense at the word "gentile" or "heathen"? All religions have some way of identifying people who do not share their beliefs - in the Marine Corps, we lovingly referred to non-Marines as "dirty hippy civilians" and other such colorful phrases which would probably get filtered here...
4. Aaton: And do the "dirty hippy civilians" generally want to cut off your head because you're different from them?
Yes, Aaron, I do take offense at "heathen," it's fairly larded with intolerance, like "kuffar", and I say so in the linked post to which I refer the reader. As far as "gentile," I''m certainly familiar with the term. It refers to non-Jews, yes, but carries much less moralistic freight than either "heathen" or "kuffar." Even so, I have to say that most Jews I've hung out with - and that'd be quite a few over the years - don't even use the term "gentiles." All those old-school "us-them" binaries around religion are pretty paleolithic, in my view. Especially when the Abrahamic faiths share so much.
The 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.
I've listened to some of those sermons. There is a lot of hateful, anti-western speach- and that's in the English portions. Who knows what exactly they say in arabic..
These 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.)
For those interested in this topic, I highly recommend:
8. So Khalid Shaikh Mohammed said they were planning to attack the Columbia Center? That's credible. This guy was probably admitting to all kinds of CIA fantasies while being tortured by the good ol' USA.
Good points, Matt.
We 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!
I thought this was Veterans Day, not "Scare the hell out of North Seattle Day".
How 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.
A bit OT... but funny, sad and TRUE!
The Democratic Dilemma
The 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.
12. Thanks for the laughs Ragnar. Great stuff and probably not too far removed from reality. It's going to be great fun to watch the dems try to figure out what they are going to do. Maybe they'll appoint a "blue ribbon committee", that usually works for them in Seattle where we probably could have rebuilt the viaduct with the money that "blue ribbon" studies, commissions, panels,commities, task forces, coalitions, etc. have wasted over the years.
13. That's "committees". Sorry.
What a brilliant piece of paranoia. Just to summarize, our government needs to infiltrate local mosques with Arabic-speaking moles because:
1. 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.
"He just asks us to fear the presence of local mosques because they are, uh, Islamic"
I 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?
16. Ragnar #11 Thanks, Good to see someone bring some production values to their posts. Would be great to see someone take your little screen play, and post a video of it on YouTube. I have a sister, who looks like Nancy Pelosi, and is just as crazy.
Bill: What other reason did he offer?
Basically 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.
18. You didn't answer my question, scottd. Big surprise.
OK: Yes there are Islamic terrorists in the real world.
Now, answer my question.
20. scottd, I'll let Matt defend himself. I do not propose to speak for him. I think he raises legitimate concerns and to dismiss them is naive.
Bill: I'm not asking you to defend Matt. He's a big boy.
I'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.
22. scottd, I'm glad to read that if a group of klansmen in a Baptist church plot to burn black churches you don't want the FBI to infiltrate their group.
scottd, your ad-hominem personal attacks aside, you can read in Matt's original post several examples of why one might have concerns about the muslim population in our midst.
If we shouldn't be concerned tell us why?
Obi-Wan: Where did you read that?
Bill: 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.
25. scottd, in your original post you imply that Matt is suggesting we "infiltrate local mosques" and you accuse him of being paranoid. As I said, Matt can defend himself. I still believe you are twisting his words in what I thought was a reasonable and well thought out post.
Bill: I didn't imply
that Matt was suggesting we infiltrate local masks. I explicitly said that's what he suggested. How else would you interpret his advocating:
impeccably 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?
Bill: It's been fun chatting with you. Don't let my typo in the last post distract you ("masks" should be "mosques").
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.
I don't know anything about infiltrating local "masks".
Wearily, I think you are misinterpreting what Matt is saying here.
Thanks for the pleasantries scottd. You know, it really is possible to have a disagreement without the name calling and ridiculous personal characterizations ("what a thin skin you have!")
Again, please re-read Matt's post. You might find that you both agree.
30. We received the bio-terror package in the mail today. Although I was working outside I missed seeing the police escorted delivery. We can all sleep safely tonight. The bio-terror package, the accompanying flyer assures us, is recyclable.
I 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.
32. It seems to be that ...moles infiltrating certain local mosques where, say, speakers lecture... does NOT suggest indiscriminate spying. You may disagree with his criteria, but you can't say that he called for all mosques to be infiltrated. The interesting thing to ask is that if anyone, arab speaking or not, would be allowed to attend, and if they did, would the message be modified due to the makeup of the attendees. I do not know if mosque gatherings are closed or not, but I think most gathering in the US are not (execpt Democratic political rallies on public school campuses), and anything that IS closed by any group that is associated with anti-American activities would make me wonder what is going on inside. Free speach is sort of a two way street. We have the right to say what we want, but don't others have a right to hear what is being said in public gatherings? Is not a religious service "open" to the public?
Like Bill Cruchon, I got my empty bio-terror box this Saturday afternoon. Does this mean that 98115 is relying for its protection on THE POST OFFICE!?
Now I am worried.
scottd, you're right, I didn't read that. This is what I meant to say, Nuancy Boy:
scottd, 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.
35. on a brighter note, now that the Dems have control of Congress, we can all look forward to more sunny days, birds singing, and peace, joy and love. I'm sure homelessness is now a thing of the past, corporate profits will no longer be obscene and the minimum wage will miraculously go up without costing any entry-level or unskilled jobs. A couple of nuked cities, perhaps a poisoned water system... these are small prices to pay for the new day dawning in America with those courageous Democrats at the helm. Hey--if you're gonna make an omelette, ya gotta break some eggs, right?