Bud: Sharia, CAIR_CAN Sued, Mosul Massacre-Saudis-Terror, US-Secret Islamic Terror Network, Left Supports Terrorists
For once, I have to agree with Sheila Copps
A while ago, Copps published an article (National Post) on Sharia law being used in Canada to settle domestic disputes. She saw this as being a tragedy for Muslim women. Her reasoning was that, in general, Muslim women have no real power in Islamic societies. One has only to look at how Sharia is applied in their home countries to see the horrible ramifications of allowing it here. The female voice can disappear in a Muslim household.
I know of one woman home schooled by a mother who hardly spoke English because interaction with Canadian students would be too polluting. The only way she could deal with this oppressive atmosphere was to flee, to cut all ties with her family. You read of honour killings, female circumcisions, and forced marriages occurring throughout Western countries. What choice does an individual Muslim female have when confronted with this mentality? Even the older female members will side with unjust decisions; they have been indoctrinated to submit to male opinion. One of the true joys of being a Muslim woman in this society is that those fetters have been loosened to some degree. If I'm not mistaken, a Muslim woman's rape charge has no validity, unless it is backed up by male witnesses. Do we want that mindset to rule behind closed doors here? As for the argument that Christian and Jewish communities have these dispute tribunals, the affected women go along with the decisions because they expect fair treatment in the judgments. The protests from educated, independent Muslim women here occur because they know implicitedly that the deck will be stacked against them in similar Muslim arbitrations using Sharia.
The family of a former FBI agent killed in the Sept 11 attack is suing this Canadian Muslim lobby group because they believe it a funnel for terrorist aid. It accuses the organization of frivolous litigation against the police and false accusations of slander against media outlets that report on Muslim terrorism. The lawsuit claims that CAIR_CAN is part of "the intellectual 'shock troops' of Islamic terrorism. . . . . . The role played by this entity is an absolutely essential part of the mix of forces arrayed against the United States as they help soften-up targeted countries so as to facilitate and enhance the likelihood of a successful attack." One of the things that came out of the US Report on the September 11th attacks was the extensive help the hijackers received from supposedly "duped" Muslims throughout the States, as well as the money that was funnelled to them by Islamic 'charities'. Instead of congratulating the authorities on closing down these terrorist funding organizations, CAIR-CAN has accused the authorities of being anti-Muslim. This tactic gains them the backing of the intellectually-blinded left-wing, who seem to want the West to falter. I say "intellectually-blind", because these lefties, with their morally abhorrent views, would be the first to be hung or stoned to death by an Islamic regime.
[. . . . ] On Monday, the Saudi-owned daily Asharq Al-Awsat identified the butcher responsible: 20-year old Ahmad Sayyid Ahmad al-Ghamdi, a Saudi medical student.
The bomber acted as a member of Ansar al-Sunnah (Volunteers of Sunni Islam), one of the most violent terror groups in Iraq, and an al Qaeda ally.
The name "al-Ghamdi" should ring bells; the family is large, and three of its members were involved in the 9/11 assault.
The Saudi daily, and Western media, identified the Mosul bomber, and even said they had spoken with his father. But no one has mentioned who the father is: Sayyid al-Ghamdi, former head of the Saudi diplomatic mission in Sudan, a country ruled by an Islamist regime that once played host to Osama bin Laden himself. [. . . . ]
Saudi Arabia's Terror Conference: Part I -- "The Saudi war on terror has exclusively focused on fighting only the wing of al-Qaeda within Saudi Arabia. As Saudi writers, TV commentators, professors, clerics, and members of the royal family often explain, Jihad is acceptable as long as it is not within or against the Kingdom."
[. . . . ] Saudi support of jihad outside the Kingdom and against U.S. troops was recently the subject of a fatwa by 26 leading Saudi religious scholars from the most prominent universities in the Kingdom. According to the fatwa, released in November, killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq is allowed. The fatwa, which came one month before the suicide attack by a Saudi bomber on an American mess hall in Mosul that killed 14 U.S. soldiers, stated: “Fighting the occupiers is a religious duty…It is a jihad to push back the assailants…Resistance is a legitimate right."
The Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C., tried to distance itself from the fatwa. However, according to Saudi law, the government is the only body that can lawfully issue such a fatwa. The unauthorized religious authorities who sanctioned the killing of U.S. troops have yet to be punished. [. . . . ]
Since 9/11, the Saudi royal family has spent millions of dollars to improve its image worldwide. [. . . . ] despite the Saudi PR efforts, which claim that the report completely vindicates Saudi Arabia, it in fact states that Saudi Arabia is "a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism" and that "significant problems remained" regarding its role in the war against terror. [. . . . ]
Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States
[. . . . ] Harvey Kushner, a respected adviser to the FBI, the FAA, the INS, and other government agencies, offers frightening new evidence of a unified Islamic terrorist network that is operating inside the United States and planning new opportunities to strike.
Kushner identifies and assesses the violent plans of these Islamic organizations and individuals who take advantage of our reluctance to engage in ethnic profiling. He supports his claims with never-before-seen documents from top-level government sources, exposing a secret network of Arab intelligence agencies, terrorists, university professors, corrupt imams and other religious leaders, and violent criminals. [. . . . ]
An open letter to opponents of the War in Iraq
An open letter to opponents of the War in Iraq January 4th, 2005. Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. His DVD, The Siege of Western Civilization is available here.(www.siegeofwesternciv.com).
I am not writing to quarrel with your judgment about the war in Iraq. Rather, I am writing to protest your attitude toward the war. And the point I want to make is this: sometimes, you have to choose between proving yourself to have been right, or helping make a project succeed despite your opposition to it.
Since all our tempers are running hot, it might be best to illustrate my point with a non-political example: . . . .
Simply put, Iraq has become the focal point of the entire war on terrorism. That’s because President Bush’s strategy for winning the war, in addition to fighting al Qaeda terrorists wherever we can find them, is to spread democracy itself throughout the Middle East. More precisely, his strategy is to create conditions in that part of the world that will trigger an Islamic revolution whose objective is to jolt Islam itself from the Seventh Century into the Twenty-first Century. In other words, we want Islam to do what Judaism and Christianity did centuries ago: namely, to reconcile with the modern world. If this actually happens in Iraq, the President believes, it will crack political ice throughout the region and trigger a chain reaction that will spread to other countries. [. . . . ]
Unholy Alliance: How the Left Supports the Terrorists at Home
The rule erecting a barrier between intelligence and criminal investigations had been put in place by Attorney General Janet Reno in July 1995.[42] Referred to as “the wall,” it caused a breakdown in the collaboration between investigators that national security officials had long realized was a danger to public safety. In the words of Mary Jo White, a Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorney who was the most seasoned al Qaeda prosecutor before 9/11: “The walls are the single greatest danger we have blocking our ability to obtain and act on [terrorist] information.”[43] One of the important innovations of the Patriot Act was to eliminate these walls. This made possible the collaboration between intelligence agencies and the FBI and led directly to the arrest of Sami al-Arian and his associates.
Another post-9/11 security reform was removing the so-called “Levi” guidelines implemented by the Ford Administration, which barred the FBI from surveilling radical organizations unless they could be shown to have committed (or be planning to commit) specific criminal acts.Under these guidelines, a terrorist organization—such as Abudallah Azzam’s Alkhifa or Sami al-Arian’s Islamic Crusade for Palestine—could recruit soldiers and funds for a holy war against the United States and be insulated from FBI scrutiny unless they could be tied to an actual criminal act. In the new age of terror, this could mean an act as destructive as 9/11 itself.
Yet it was precisely these provisions of the Patriot Act to which the left objected and against which it mounted a ferocious national campaign. For more than half a century the left had defended revolutionaries and agents of revolutionary states who had broken American laws. Radical legal organizations like the National Lawyers Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights, as well as Sami al-Arian’s National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, had been created for the express purpose of doing so. They supplied the lead counsels for violent radicals and terrorist suspects both before and after 9/11 and were themselves vocal antagonists of America’s wars and its national security defenses.[. . . . ]
It was the idea of terrorism itself that radicals found problematic. . . .
