What the 9/11 Terrorists Say about Islam, Killing the Infidel is our Religious Duty

I repeatedly tell people, "Don't believe me about Islamic fundamentalism, believe those that expound it." Well here they are in their own words.

Excerpts from the full statement of the 9/11 defendants:

**************************************

THE ISLAMIC RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NINE ACCUSATIONS

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

The 9/11 Shura' Council

Many thanks to God who revealed the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran, and may God praise his messenger, the prophet Mohamed, so that he causes mercy to the two realms. Also, may God praise the prophet's household, his entire companionship, and his followers until judgment day.

With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims.

Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion. These actions are our offerings to God. In addition, it is the imposed reality on Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, in the land of the two holy sites [Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia], and in the rest of the world, where Muslims are suffering from your brutality, terrorism, killing of the innocent, and occupying their lands and their holy sites. Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity. However, today, we fight you over defending Muslims, their land, their holy sites,and their religion as a whole.

******************************************

There you have it, yes they are pissed off about our "aggression", but they would kill us over our infidelity anyway. "Terrorizing" us is their religious "duty".

Enough said.

CAIR Complains about Muslims Getting Caught Plotting Jihad

Leave it to the Council on American Islamic Relations (an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror case) to come to the defense of jihadists plotting murder, instead of the law enforcement agencies who are attempting to stop them.

That is right, CAIR is now complaining because the FBI had infiltrated an Orange County (California) mosque. The undercover agent recorded Ahmadullah Niazi (the brother-in-law of one of Bin Laden's bodyguards) talking about blowing up buildings, acquiring weapons and sending money to jihadists in Afghanistan.

What did CAIR have to say?:

“infiltrating mainstream mosques the way FBI informants infiltrate white supremacist groups illustrates the FBI’s perception of American Muslims as a community that must be constantly monitored, instead of being treated as an equal partner in fighting crime and terrorism.”

That's right, the problem isn't that American mosques are centers of radicalism and terrorist plots its that the FBI is actually doing what it is supposed to do. Americans pay taxes so that the FBI will identify suspicious people and act against them in accordance with the laws and Constitution of the United States. to prevent terrorist attacks that will kill or harm American citizens. Of course CAIR wants Muslims to be seen as "equal partners". Why don't they start by turning over these kind of preachers and actively eschewing this kind of talk and behavior? CAIR continues to refuse to condemn Hamas, funny how that works.

The prosecutor for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 said that the recruitment, training, and weapons transactions actually occurred inside of mosques. This is nothing new, Jihadists in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan repeatedly use mosques to store deadly weapons and launch attacks, then cry foul when the very people they are attempting to kill attack them inside their mosques. The jihadists militarize their mosques, and then complain when that comes back to bite them.

This certainly explains why the FBI has broken off its relationship with CAIR. CAIR actively uses the pretense of civil rights to better disguise the fact that there is a minority (however small) of American Muslims who are actively plotting violent jihad, in of all places, the houses of worship of the "religion of peace".

Lieberman, Yisrael Beitenu...the Future of Israel.... and Europe.

I am going to try to tie these two seemingly disjointed topics into one, because I feel they are relevant to one another.

The elections in Israel have just been concluded, with a right wing surge in the Knesset. It looks as if Benjamin Netanyahu will be the the next prime minister (as Yisrael Beitenu has thrown its weight behind him). This has been a time of political turmoil in Israel as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (of the centrist party Kadima) has resigned after charges of corruption (which have affected Ariel Sharon the former Likud Prime Minister, and a number of other Israeli politicians) were forwarded. There has also been the Gaza conflict, that for whatever reason, became a sudden issue (rockets have been falling for years). This operation was launched under the leadership of a centrist prime minister (Olmert) and Labor defense minister (former Prime Ministe Ehud Barak). No doubt this was an attempt to show their "toughness" (and revive their relevancy) on the Arabs prior to the election to fend off the right wing, which is perceived as tougher on Arabs and more concerned with security.

In the elections for Knesset seats, Kadima (centrist) came in first with 28 seats, Likud (conservative) with 27 seats, Yisrael Beitenu (very right wing) with 15 seats, Labor (liberal) with 13 seats, and Shas (Haredi Sephardi and Mizrachi Judaism) with 11. Following this there were minor parties with a few seats. The important thing to note here is the popularity enjoyed by Yisrael Beitenu (meaning "Israel is our home").

Yisrael Beitenu is headed by a man named Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman is a Jew of Russian origin who resides in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim (near Bethlehem). Lieberman, although having been involved in governments and cabinets before, has made a resurgence (he had resigned from some posts and been sacked from another), particularly after the Gaza conflict. Lieberman provides an interesting and controversial solution to Israel's Palestinian problem. He has suggested that Israel cede territory that is primarily inhabited by Arabs which lies adjacent to the West Bank, to PA control, and annex areas of the West Bank that contain large concentrations of Israeli settlers (notably areas around E. Jerusalem). He has also said that any Arabs who choose to remain in Israel should take a loyalty oath or lose their right to vote (but could remain as 'permanent residents' if they didn't). He has also said the same oath should be required of certain Haredi groups... one can only assume he is referring to the Neturei Karta, a group of Orthodox Jews that reject Zionism as blasphemous (only God can return the Jews to Israel). It is worth noting that the Neturei Karta sent representatives to the Holocaust "Review" Conference in Tehran (please don't confuse them with decent people).

This is a highly controversial solution because it requires ethnic gerrymandering and the illegal annexation of illegal settlements. It has drawn criticism from right and left. The left claim it is racist and anti-democratic, and the right claiming it is giving up parts of the land of Israel and any such action is wrong from a Zionist perspective. Lieberman has had run ins with MK's from Arab parties (Balad, etc...) who have accused him of racism. Not only have Arabs made this claim so has Ophir Pines-Paz who called him a racist after threatening to "take care of" Arab ministers (saying they would be tried for treason and executed for meetings with any hostile government or entity). Lieberman had also suggested that sweeping military actions be conducted in the face of any Palestinian aggression, saying that the IDF should bomb commercial centers in Ramallah and other West Bank towns. This drew a stern rebuke from President Shimon Peres.

I think that in the end, Israel will have to make unilateral decisions regarding its borders and citizens. I also think Lieberman has made an insightful statement , saying that peace negotiations are based on three false premises:

1) The Israel-Palestinian conflict is the root of instability in the Middle East.
2) The conflict is territorial and not ideological.
3) The establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict.

I think that Lieberman is substantively correct here. And because of this I made the first statement, Israel will have to make unilateral decisions. The Palestinian territories are disjointed and filled with a people that have no desire to see commitments entered into by their leaders (Oslo etc...) fulfilled. Hamas is too powerful and too destructive. Israel will have to define its final border on its own. Unfortunately, due to the building of the security barrier, this won't be on the international recognized 1967 border. The Israelis will end up annexing areas with large settler presence so as not to uproot them. This will draw international condemnation and further hurt the image of Israel. But based on past experience it may be the only possible solution. Palestinians still hold the view (by and large) that Palestine is from the "River to the Sea. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" is a ubiquitous chant at rallies, and obviously leaves no room for Israel. Negotiations are a waste so long as the partner holds dear Israel's destruction.

The surge in popularity of both Lieberman and Yisrael Beitenu (made up of secular as well as religious Russian Jews) is important because it is evidence of what happens when dealing with a Muslim population (in this instance, but any implacable group in theory) becomes impossible. The Israelis left Gaza and Hamas was elected, it took over violently and carried on in its policy of indiscriminate violence (rocket fire). Negotiations with the PA have failed. The PA has not followed through on even its most basic commitments from Oslo (the Israelis have also failed to dismantle settlements, or even stop their growth ). The situation is not progressing, solutions must be reached, and now unilaterally.

This relates to Europe because similar situations could occur. If the Muslim population in, say, Britain is not helped (or forced) to integrate, and it remains a separate, secluded, group then the rise of right wing politicians is inevitable. In fact this is already happening as the BNP has seen an increase in popularity. Muslims have created enclaves which are "no go" for infidels. The constant push down the one way street of compromise with Islam (Islam takes and never gives) is going to frustrate citizens who don't want Shariah courts, bans on alcohol, and violent mob behavior every time a Muslim sensitivity is offended. Europe take heed, end the appeasement or get a Euro version of Yisrael Beitenu.