Aug 202010
 
Shabab

By Mike Levine


One of the nation’s top intelligence officials was stunned by what he heard in that secret, underground facility.

Jack Tomarchio, the Department of Homeland Security’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the time, had flown from Washington to Ohio earlier that spring day for a briefing on the Buckeye State’s latest efforts against terrorism. Now, as heavy winds battered the streets above, two Ohio Homeland Security officials told him how the capitals of Ohio and Minnesota had become havens for refugees of war-torn Somalia.

“Get out of town!” Tomarchio remembers saying in surprise. “Why did they go to Minnesota? It’s freezing up there. Why don’t they go to Arizona, where it’s desert-like?”

Al Shabab fighters

Will Al Shabab Attack Inside U.S.? U.S. underestimated potential threat of Somali terror group

Then the two briefers told Tomarchio they were becoming increasingly concerned about “radical mosques” in Columbus, Ohio, where imams “considered to be a little fiery” would come from Somalia and preach anti-Western messages to the growing Somali community, Tomarchio recalls about that day in 2006.

It marked one of the first times a U.S. counterterrorism official was warned that Islamic extremists in Somalia could pose a threat to the U.S. homeland — not just a threat to the Horn of Africa or U.S. interests there.

* Exerpt From ‘Rag Tag Group of Kids’ to ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization’

Al Shabab’s name first emerged in U.S. intelligence reports in July 2006, shortly after Usama bin Laden posted a message online warning the international community to stay out of Somalia. At the time, what U.S. officials called a “loose coalition of Islamic insurgents” known as the Islamic Courts Union and their “extremist faction” were fighting the relatively new Transitional Federal Government. The “extremist faction” dubbed themselves Al Shabab — or “The Youth” in Arabic.

~I JUST finished watching this & although I would never post a full length video, I felt this one was important for anyone one of us who has either fought the War on Terror following 9/11 or is JUST wondering how on earth we are producing so very many American Jihadists. I felt this episode was an important one to watch, as I hope you do also. I also felt it was important for those of you not familiar with Abu Mansoor Al-Amriki, that you do to get to know him & all those who wish to take down our country. This episode will be a great asset for your knowledge on how their minds work, how they twist islam from a religion to extremism & what makes them tick. It is our goal at JUST Piper to inform. ~JP

~JP Profile of an American Jihadi (Omar Hammami of Daphne, Ala)~’the Jihadist next door’

So the big question now: Will Al Shabab launch an attack inside the United States?

Some current and former officials say they’re skeptical, believing if it happens it won’t be anytime soon. While acknowledging that the chances of such an attack have “probably” increased over the past two years, the senior intelligence official said Al Shabab still has limited reach and limited intentions.

“They’ve now gone beyond Somali borders to hit Uganda, but is hitting Uganda and hitting Buffalo (N.Y.) the same thing? No,” the official said. “It’s substantially different. Getting from Mogadishu to Kampala is relatively simple.”

More importantly, the senior intelligence official said, Al Shabab’s “number one goal” is “not to win the global jihad, it’s to turn Somalia into a Shabab-ville,” where strict Islamic law rules everything, and he hasn’t seen any “convincing evidence that they’ve refocused on the West at large.”

* Exerpt ‘Would Speak Different Today’

Mudd said he “would speak different today” than he did during that March 2009 hearing, insisting “the temperature’s been lowered” on the ground in Somalia and within Somali communities in the United States.

Not only have some foreign forces opposed by Al Shabab already left Somalia, but the FBI investigation and reaction from Somalis inside the United States seem to be having an effect.

At least 26 men and women spanning eight states have now been charged for either joining Al Shabab, planning to do so, or trying to help others get there. Of those in custody, at least five have pleaded guilty.

At the same time, Somalis inside the United States decided, “We got to get our arms around this because we don’t want our kids going over there getting whacked,” Mudd said. The senior intelligence official agreed, describing Somali communities as “horrified” that some of their own were joining Al Shabab.

As for Tomarchio, four years after his underground briefing in Ohio and after first hearing of Al Shabab, he also said he believes an Al Shabab strike inside the United States is “unlikely” anytime soon. But, he said, it’s too early to “write off the future operational capabilities of Al Shabab.”

“We did this with Al Qaeda years ago,” he said. “And what did that give us? 9/11.”

Full report

Share
 Posted by at 10:45 am
Aug 192010
 

By GEOFF EARLE & TOM TOPOUSIS NY Post

The developers of the Ground Zero mosque are refusing to flat out reject cash for the project from Holocaust-denying Iranian nuke nut Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“I can’t comment on that” was the reply of mosque spokesman Oz Sultan yesterday when asked specifically if the fund-raising would extend to Iran and Saudi Arabia. “We’ll look at all available options within the United States to start.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the project known as Park51, has said at meetings with downtown officials that he would raise money for the 13-story mosque from local Muslims, foundations and the sale of bonds.

But in an interview with a London-based Arab newspaper earlier this year, he admitted his fund-raising would also extend to Muslim nations around the world.

The possibility of tapping the radical rogue Islamic state of Iran for funds comes as the United States is stepping up sanctions on the regime in retaliation for its support of terrorism and what is feared to be an illegal nuclear-weapons development program.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday weighed in on the controversy, saying she wants to know about the funding for the mosque — but also calling for a probe into funding for the project’s opponents.

During an interview with a San Francisco radio station, Pelosi said opponents are trying to politicize the project. She told the station she wants to know: “How is this being ginned up?”

The demand infuriated mosque opponent Debra Burlingame, whose brother was a pilot aboard one of the hijacked airliners on 9/11.

“This is all out of our pockets. Nobody is funding us a dime,” Burlingame said of herself and other 9/11 families opposing the mosque.

Bipartisan opposition grew yesterday when Howard Dean — former head of the Democratic National Committee — called the mosque near Ground Zero “a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives, including Muslims.”

Yesterday, the mosque’s developers said they are “committed to maintaining the current planned location,” according to a statement on their blog.

The statement came as Rauf began a Mideast tour on behalf of the State Department.

Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the trip to Bahrain, Qatar and Abu Dhabi will cost taxpayers $16,000. He said that Rauf isn’t going to use the time in the Mideast to raise funds for his mosque.

Despite political fallout, President Obama yesterday said he has “no regrets” over the comments he made Friday about the right of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

But his voice of support during a White House dinner for Muslim leaders hasn’t done anything to convince some Americans he isn’t a Muslim himself.

A Time Magazine poll of 1,002 Americans, taken after the speech, found that 24 percent believe Obama is Muslim and only 47 percent believe he is Christian. Nearly a quarter didn’t know either way. He is, in fact, a Christian.

Share
 Posted by at 9:48 pm
Aug 172010
 

Share
 Posted by at 12:18 pm
Aug 172010
 

Share
 Posted by at 12:16 pm
Aug 172010
 

AP/FOX

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – A rural Alaska couple accused of domestic terrorism compiled a hit list of 20 targets, including members of the military and media, and had moved to the operational phase of their plan, according to documents filed in federal court Monday.

Paul and Nadia Rockwood of King Salmon have pleaded guilty to lying about the list and making false statements to the FBI in May.

Paul and Nadia Rockwood

Under a plea agreement, Paul Rockwood will serve eight years in prison and three years probation while his pregnant wife will serve probation. Sentencing is scheduled Aug. 23 in U.S. District Court in Anchorage.

Rockwood’s public defender claims her client was lonely in King Salmon and befriended an undercover Alaska State Trooper while attending mosque during trips to Anchorage.

“The relationship clearly was fed by the trooper’s interest in Mr. Rockwood and the drama created by their conversations,” his attorney, Sue Ellen Tatter, wrote in her sentencing memo.

“All of Mr. Rockwood’s behavior with the state trooper was talk or paperwork. None of Mr. Rockwood’s close associates, including his father, his wife and friends in King Salmon, believed he was capable of planned violence,” Tatter wrote.

Prosecutors alleged that Paul Rockwood, also known as “Bilal,” converted to Islam about a decade ago and began studying the teachings of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who has professed hatred for the United States and supports acts of terrorism. The couple then moved to King Salmon, where he worked for the National Weather Service.

“While in Alaska, Rockwood researched and discussed methods of execution often at great length and in significant detail, components for mail bombs were purchased, the targets had been selected and a loose time line was established,” assistant U.S. Attorneys Steven Skrocki and Bryan Schroder wrote in their sentencing memo.

Prosecutors said he gave the list of targets to his wife in April, and she carried it with her on a trip to Anchorage, where the FBI obtained it.

The court documents didn’t disclose any names, only a summary of those on the list. It included a publishing company executive, a media personality, seven members of the military, seven other individuals, two religious organizations and two publishing companies.

Federal authorities also claim Paul Rockwood began researching ways to kill them.

“With some, this included discussing the use of mail bombs and the possibility of killing targets by gunshot to the head,” federal attorneys said.

“This was not a case of ‘if’, but a case of ‘when’ with the ‘when’ becoming more likely with Rockwood’s departure from King Salmon,” the government said.

Tatter counters that Rockwood was lonely, suffering from an inner ear disease that can cause dizziness, nausea and hearing loss, and that he was addicted to opiate painkillers and was in treatment during his relationship with the trooper.

She said he quit his job, and the family was moving from King Salmon to Boston on the first leg of a journey to England when they were intercepted May 19 by the FBI.

“When federal agents showed him the list — which they obviously obtained from the undercover trooper — Mr. Rockwood stated: ‘I’m surprised he (the Trooper Sgt.) compiled this …’ Mr. Rockwood did not admit that he himself compiled the list,” tatter wrote.

She characterized Rockwood as “unsophisticated mechanically” and said he has never been committed to a plan of action. She said he was “soft-hearted and extremely committed to his family.”

King Salmon is a small community of a few hundred people on the Alaska Peninsula.

Share
 Posted by at 12:14 pm
Aug 172010
 
NOT ON HALLOWED GROUND !

What should one write about first and foremost? The “greening” of America? The “socialization” of America? The “de-exceptionalism” of America? Or the “Islamization” of America?

Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

On the contrary, that “strain” of Islam is its core philosophical and political nature in action. It is fundamentally viral, vitriolic in its position on non-Muslims, and destructive. There is nothing “extreme” in how terrorists practice it. Their actions are not antithetical to it. It is as Islam is meant to be practiced. Run-of-the-mill, non-violent Muslims who do not practice Islam in its essentials are “sham Muslims,” who wish to have their mysticism and banal anonymity, too, passively content with their “submission.” It saves them from the task and responsibility of thinking.

Build it anywhere but there.

The media isn’t really good at explaining the difference between these Muslims and those Muslims. By Daniel Greenfield

Just the facts, Imam. A Muslim terrorist attack damaged a building, allowing Muslims to pick it up for a fraction of the price, in order to build a mosque on the spot. Some people might say that sort of thing is tacky. A little like coming by to make an offer on the house, after your cousin murdered the entire family who lived there. Sure, you might claim that you’re not responsible, but it just doesn’t look good. Especially once you start paling around with your cousin, and suggesting that maybe he was just misunderstood. And maybe that family brought it on themselves.

When Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, the media spent thousands of gallons of ink claiming that he was suffering from some airborne form of PTSD that he picked up from the soldiers he was abusing—all evidence to the contrary. When the Times Square Bomber tried to kill a few thousand New Yorkers, the media claimed that he was upset because his house had been foreclosed on. Inconveniently enough, he turned out to be a Muslim terrorist, complete with his very own Al Queda martyrdom video.

But the media has never actually said those five little words. “Sorry America, we were wrong.” Because the media is never wrong. Sometimes they’re just technically incorrect. Sometimes the facts just don’t agree with their reality. And the reality can get pretty hazy down on the other side of the Reality Based Community. Especially when there’s enough drugs in the mix. And even when it’s just the liberal Kool Aid talking.

Finally the media plays its trump card. Religious freedom. It’s in the Constitution, Man! And who has never doubted the media’s commitment to religious freedom, except when it comes to prayer in schools or in the military. Or their commitment to the Bill of Rights, which they would die for, except for the parts they don’t like very much.

5 years ago, the good Muslims of Gaza decided to torch a bunch of synagogues. Naturally the media got very outraged about it. Well, not exactly. The media actually enthusiastically endorsed the burning of synagogues. Why? Because synagogues in Gaza are innately offensive.

While a synagogue was being vandalized by a gleeful Muslim mob, CNN’s Matthew Chance explained:

This structure behind me—very controversial because it is the Jewish synagogue in the middle of Netzarim. The Israeli cabinet, of course, voting to leave those synagogues standing, very much angering the Palestinian Authority, because they know that these buildings are seen very much by the vast majority of Palestinians as potent symbols of the Israeli occupation and could not be protected or even left standing. And so we’re seeing very sensitive scenes here over the past few hours as the Palestinian security forces move the civilians out of that synagogue and move their bulldozers in to take away these structures, again, seen as hated symbols of the Israeli occupation.

Just the Facts, Imam. Here 3,000 Americans were murdered. For working in offices or visiting them. For being members of the NYPD or the PAPD or the FDNY. For putting on a uniform or a suit. For living their lives. And then the walls and floors and furniture around them burned. The papers in their hands burned. Their bodies burned. The ashes drifted down narrow streets. Streets where George Washington and his men once passed to visit Fraunces Tavern and toward Broadway where the Iranian hostages rode back in a ticker tape parade on their return.

First they bomb. Now they occupy. We have lived through the bombing. And now we rise to defy the occupation.

NOT ON HALLOWED GROUND !

Obama’s ‘Teachable’ Shariah Moment By Frank Gaffney Jr. Bringing the law of Saudi Arabia and Iran, shariah, to America

On Friday night, Barack Obama gave his full-throated endorsement to a mosque and “cultural center” on private property that has been purchased in Lower Manhattan adjacent to the site where the World Trade Center’s twin towers once stood. By Saturday, however, he wanted the American people to know that he was not commenting on “the wisdom” of putting such a mosque by that hallowed ground – just “the right” of its backers like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to do it, pursuant to the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom.

Unfortunately for the President – but fortunately for the country – it is too late for such ludicrous contortions and dissembling. However much Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats now regret his original White House statement, it has created a “teachable moment.” Not just about the Ground Zero mosque but about the larger enterprise it is intended to serve: bringing the law of Saudi Arabia and Iran, shariah, to America.

Imam Rauf makes no bones about that being his purpose. So do some of his most prominent backers, like the Muslim Brotherhood front, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise, the designated terrorist group Hamas. In fact, according to the New York Post, on Sunday, Mahmoud al-Zahar, an Hamas co-founder and leader in Gaza, told WABC Radio host Aaron Klein: “We have to build the mosque [at Ground Zero]. We have to build everywhere. In every area we have [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray and this mosque is the only site of prayer.”

Al-Zahar also enthused about shariah, calling it the “tradition of Islam” which “is controlling every source of our life as regards to marriage, divorce, our commercial relations.” He added ominously that, “Even the Islamic people or Muslims in [the United States] are living now in the tradition of Islam.”


What else have we learned so far from Mr. Obama’s teachable shariah moment? We now know that the President is willing to associate with members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), not just in Cairo – where he insisted they be invited to hear his famous paean to Islam last year – but in the White House. For example, leaders of known MB front groups like Ingrid Mattson of the Islamic Society of North America and Salam al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council were in the company at the Iftar dinner Friday when Mr. Obama fervently embraced the Ground Zero mosque.

What on earth is the President of the United States doing fraternizing with, and thereby legitimating, operatives of an organization with such a seditious mission – to say nothing of endorsing their most immediate priority: the Ground Zero Mosque?

As he hosted the Ramadan fast-breaking dinner at the White House on Friday, President Obama showed his true colors on shariah. Trying to dress up the Ground Zero mosque or any other aspect of this brutally repressive, totalitarian and inherently unconstitutional program as a matter of “religious freedom” does not pass the giggle test. Shariah is about power, not faith, and no amount of Obama subsidies, solidarity or spin on behalf of that agenda will persuade the American people to allow the so-called “tradition of Islam” to supplant our civil liberties, form of government and way of life.

The Ground Zero Mosque – What Have We Not Been Told? In a Family Security Matters Editorial on Sunday, it was suggested that President Obama’s apparent support of the Ground Zero Mosque, followed less than 24 hours by presidential back-pedaling, was creating a crisis of leadership. The apparent pandering to a project which has never gained widespread public support was predestined to create problems.

by: Timothy A. Clary, AFP/Getty Images

We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation! By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Special

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled “Help.” He couldn’t understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden’s American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna”

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the “Cordoba Initiative” and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Raheel Raza is author of Their Jihad … Not my Jihad, and Tarek Fatah is author of The Jew is Not My Enemy (McClelland & Stewart), to be launched in October. Both sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Share
 Posted by at 9:01 am
Aug 082010
 

Share
Aug 082010
 

WMD Terrorism Remains Grave Threat, U.S. Says

The possibility that a terrorist organization might launch a WMD attack remains one of the “gravest threats” to the security of the United States and its allies, the U.S. State Department said yesterday in its annual terrorism report (see GSN, June 8).

The “Country Reports on Terrorism 2009″ addressed the threat of terrorism involving chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons and Washington’s response to those dangers.

The State Department noted that al-Qaeda and other extremist groups have expressed interest in acquiring nuclear weapons.

“The diffusion of scientific and technical information regarding the a Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorismssembly of nuclear weapons, some of which is now available on the Internet, has increased the risk that a terrorist organization in possession of sufficient fissile material could develop its own crude nuclear weapon,” the report says. “The complete production of a nuclear weapon strongly depends on the terrorist group’s access to special nuclear materials as well as engineering and scientific expertise.”

Due to the proliferation efforts of “irresponsible countries” like North Korea, “the number of potential sources of an unsecured nuclear weapon or materials is challenging worldwide efforts to control and account for nuclear material,” according to the State Department. Extremists could also look to underground smuggling networks and international criminal organizations for aid in acquiring or developing anuclear devices, the report says.

While the terrorist detonation of a radiological “dirty bomb” would not be as calamitous as a terrorist nuclear attack, the prevalence of radioactive substances “in nearly every country” means it is much easier to acquire the materials to construct such a weapon, the report says.

“Most radioactive materials lack sufficient strength to present a significant public health risk once dispersed, while the materials posing the greatest hazard would require terrorists to have the expertise to handle them without exposure to incapacitating doses of radiation or detection during transit across international borders,” the report says.

However, detonation of a radiological weapon — which would use conventional explosives to disperse radioactive material — could cause a significant amount of panic and financial “disruption,” the State Department said.

The report notes the potential for a bioterrorism strike, as “the materials required to produce a biological weapon are available in laboratories worldwide, and may threat agents could be isolated from nature.” Al-Qaeda is believed to have pressed harder than other terrorist groups to obtain or produce biological weapons, according to the report, which cites the U.S. discovery of an unfinished laboratory in Afghanistan.

“If properly produced and released, biological agents can kill on a massive scale and, if terrorists use a pathogen that can be transmitted from person to person, the disease could quickly spread through commercial air travel across oceans and continents before authorities realize their nations have been attacked,” the report says.

Full report

Floating Nuclear Reactors Could Fall Prey to Terrorists, Experts Say

By Martin Matishak Global Security Newswire

Second in a five-part Global Security Newswire series on emerging technologies and scientific advances that might pose new proliferation risks.

WASHINGTON — Russia is wrapping up work on the first of a proposed fleet of floating nuclear reactors that would provide electricity to remote areas, but that are also more vulnerable to terrorists and even piracy than traditional power stations, experts say (see GSN, Oct. 1, 2007).

Sailing small, modular atomic reactors raises concerns about proliferation, along with their safety in extreme weather conditions and what to do with the radioactive waste they produce.

“The sort of emotional reaction is, well, if you didn’t like nuclear power reactors to begin with will you like them any better if they’re floating?” Sharon Squassoni, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Proliferation and Prevention Program, said in a recent telephone interview. “Probably not. Whatever problems you have on land, you can equally have on sea only if you have a core meltdown in the water you’re going to have a huge radioactive problem on hand.”

Russia’s nuclear agency launched the Academician Lomonosov, a barge that would eventually carry a power plant, on June 30 in St. Petersburg. The $200 million vessel, which measures roughly 472 feet long and 98 feet wide, would accommodate two 35-megawatt reactors, known as KTL-40Cs, and could provide electricity for up to 200,000 people, Rosatom officials say.

The average land-based nuclear power reactor generates about 1,000 megawatts of electricity, Squassoni said.

The reactor itself would be ready to operate in late 2012, the first of seven vessels Russia intends to build within five years. At least 15 countries — including Algeria, Argentina, China and Malaysia — have shown interest in contracting the services of such a system, according to the nuclear agency.

The first ship would help power Vilyuchinsk, a city on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula that serves as an atomic submarine base. Similar models could deliver electricity to the country’s hard-to-reach northern territories, where harsh weather makes regular coal and oil deliveries unreliable and expensive. The reactor could also be modified into a desalination plant in order to produce fresh water.

Nuclear fuel for the plant would be loaded in the northern Murmansk region, and the station towed to its place of operation. The plant would store waste and spent fuel in an onboard facility that workers would empty every 10 to 12 years during regular maintenance overhauls. The reactor and the spent fuel would then go to a storage facility in Russia, but the barge could be recycled.

The ships would need to be refueled once every three years. The vessel would be hauled away after 32 years of service.

The station’s offshore locale is a key potential benefit as the power plant would be kept away from population areas where residents might otherwise object to the presence of nuclear energy operations, according to Mark Hibbs, a senior associate in the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Other advantages include lower upfront investment costs for the smaller, modular reactors and the system’s overall ability to be towed near remote settlements where need for electricity is greatest, he said in a recent telephone interview. Hibbs added that Indonesia, and far-flung parts of its archipelago, could be the technology’s biggest potential customer.

The technology could also prove particularly beneficial to mining companies to power operations to extract oil and gas and other valuable minerals from the Arctic shore and other remote regions, he told Global Security Newswire.

Proliferation and Environment Concerns

Share
Aug 072010
 

*Thanks PF- Thanks * creeping sharia *

Update (8/7/10): Body Scanners Coming to JFK, Newark, LaGuardia airports – but TSA exempts Muslims so what’s the point?

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has taken transparency to a new level.

First, the TSA posted its entire Screening Management Standard Operating Procedure document online. The posting of that amateurishly redacted document was followed by the posting of a second document with the same redaction flaw – revealing more TSA baggage screening policies.

Terrorists, who no doubt have dissected the unredacted documents, have also been discussing ways to evade and beat airport scanners on jihadi forums:


“We have that system in place in Algiers…does anyone know if it’s capable of detecting [the flammable gas] butane?”

On another Jihadist site, a visitor questions security involving 3D scanners at British airports asking: “Can I refuse [to pass through] for religious reasons?”

Before long comes this answer: “…advise those who wish to avoid the Heathrow scanners to take the train to Paris… and then board a plane from there.”

The TSA website features a map and lists of locations to help terrorists determine which airports to avoid when planning to smuggle explosives aboard commercial airplanes. There’s also a video on CNN showing just how easy it is to beat TSA’s screenings.

Since terrorism isn’t limited to air travel, the TSA also lists other domestic U.S. locations where the scanning technology is used, primarily court houses and prisons. Might court houses and prisons be targets for Islamic terrorists

Since terrorism isn’t limited to air travel, the TSA also lists other domestic U.S. locations where the scanning technology is used, primarily court houses and prisons. Might court houses and prisons be targets for Islamic terrorists

New budget requests are likely put 1,000 machines in the nation’s highest-risk airports by next year. However, body scanner screening is “optional for all passengers,” and this is due to the stealth jihad of Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States (funded from outside the United States) – and was enacted to exempt the specific religious demographic that prompted the need for such advanced security.

From a May 2009 posting – well before the Christmas plane bombing attempt and faux fatwas to protect Islamic terrorists were issued; from a host of Muslim Brotherhood-linked stealth jihadists including MPAC, the Islamic Shura Council, and the Fiqh Council of North America:

After a series of meetings with interfaith leaders and advocacy organizations, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) this week agreed to make traveler compliance with the highly controversial “full body scanners” optional.

The welcome announcement came after a number of groups expressed concern over privacy and modesty issues, for themselves and their children, related to the advanced image technology machines. The TSA reassured the community representatives (Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, Chairman Fiqh Council of North America, Shakeel Syed, Executive Director Islamic Shura Council and Aziza Hassan, Director Government Relations of MPAC) in a meeting requested by the Islamic Shura Council to discuss the Islamic perspective on body scanners.

The Fiqh Council’s position for Muslims to avail “alternate screening options” remains good until such time TSA offers less invasive alternate technologies, said Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi.

The Islamic Shura Council will continue to coordinate with the TSA leadership of LAX Airports in regard to body scanner issues.

In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood is keeping the TSA and LAX sharia compliant in check (and we told you earlier this week they were keeping the LAPD and other California police departments in check too – video here). Also keep in mind LAX has been the target of Islamic terrorists before and history proves the jihad likes to target the same site until it is successful.

It all seems too easy. Islamic terrorists have every advantage. They don’t even have to work for information. They are exempt from the security measures in place to thwart and catch them. And their “peaceful” co-religionists aid and abet them. As does the U.S. government.

Introduction to the Islamic Shura Council (2/2) from Shura Council on Vimeo.

NOTE :The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced that the hotly debated machines will be installed at Newark Liberty, John F. Kennedy and LaGuardia international airports in September. TSA officials contend that the technology allows security screeners to see non-metal weapons like explosives that go undetected by existing metal detectors.

Only passengers that are flagged for extra security screenings are asked to go stand in the machines for imaging.

August 7 2010- Coming Soon: Body Scanners at JFK, Newark, LaGuardia

Source

~An interesting thing I would like to add on Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, states the following: Fatwa of Mufti Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi

Apologists or Extremists Muzammil Siddiqi

Muzammil Siddiqi was born in India in 1943 and studied at Aligarh Muslim University and Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama in Lucknow. After receiving a graduate degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Islamic University of Medina in Saudi Arabia, he went on to earn an M.A. in Theology from Birmingham University in England and a Ph.D. in Comparative Religion from Harvard University.[1]

He is the director Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC)[2] and was formerly the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) from 1997 to 2000.[3] He still serves on ISNA’s board of directors and is Chairman of the ISNA affiliated North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).[4]

ISNA’s founders had roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, Siddiqi’s public statements range from endorsing laws in countries where homosexuality is punishable by death to wishing for Sharia law to govern America.

ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). The society was listed among entities that were part of the Muslim Brotherhood structure in America. In a statement issued during the trial, ISNA said it “is not now nor has it ever been subject to the control of any other domestic or international organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood.”[5]

However, ISNA was mentioned repeatedly in internal Brotherhood documents from the late 1980s and early 1990s seized by federal law enforcement officials and introduced at the HLF trial.

IPT

Share