He now admits he was a jihadist here.

The Obama administration is hushing it up.  But the American people realize they are less secure under Obama with his disastrous policies toward terrorism.

The terrorists are not going to stop, and they will become ever-more innovative as they exploit the seems in air security.
 

John Leonard at Americanthinker.com provides a chronology of terrorist dry-runs and suspicious acts since 1999.

Chronology of Pattern Behavior

Once the point had been reached where additional information is no
longer forthcoming about these two flights in the foreseeable future,
I didn’t know where to look for more information. An experienced
reporter working on these stories suggested I turn my attention
backwards to seeing whether any dots could be connected to incidents
on past flights.

America West Flight 90 — Nov 19, 1999. In this pre-September 11th
incident, two passengers speaking Arabic roamed the plane without
permission and attempted to enter the cockpit in what has been
described by the 9/11 commission in their report as a dry run.
“Students” Muhammed al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan al-Shalawi were placed in
custody and removed from the flight. Bomb-sniffing dogs were brought
to search the plane. The airline was sued for discrimination, but the
case was dismissed.

Northwest Flight 327 — Jun 29, 2004. Described by flight marshals as
a terrorist dry run, thirteen men of Syrian descent changed seats,
congregated in the aisles, used the bathrooms excessively, appeared
nervous, and behaved in a strange manner long enough to draw attention
and concern from fellow passengers. Air marshals on the plane
instructed the flight crew to radio ahead for law enforcement to meet
the plane when it landed in Los Angeles.

US Airways Flight 300 — November 20, 2006. The infamous case of the
flying imams, who allegedly changed seats in order to take control of
every entry and exit route from the plane, ignored their assigned
seats, requested unnecessary seat belt extensions, and disrupted the
flight. The unused seat belt extenders were left lying on the airplane
floor. Hmmm. Webbed strap belts with metal heads attached — why would
anyone be concerned about that? Who worries about customers acting
strangely who make obviously unnecessary and unusual special requests?

The imams were removed from the plane but cried discrimination after
the fact. They sued the airline and received an undisclosed
settlement. CAIR and the imams declared victory.

AirTran Flight 175 — Jan 1, 2009. According to an article published
by the Atlanta Business Chronicle, nine Muslims traveling to an
Islamic conference were removed from the plane after two members of
the group allegedly engaged in a debate about the safest location to
sit in the event of a bombing on the plane. The conversation alarmed
other passengers, who alerted the flight crew and caused the plane to
be diverted. According to Doug Hagmann in the Canada Free Press:

[N]one of the remaining 95 passengers made it to their ultimate
destinations on time, AirTran refunded some tickets and made other
booking arrangements due to the incident, which cost the airline
dearly in time, money, and passenger goodwill.

A press release from AirTran found at EuroInvestor.co.ukincredibly
reported that AirTran actually rewarded the nine Muslims who disrupted
the flight, saying:

The airline has refunded the air fares of the nine passengers detained
for questioning, has agreed to reimburse the passengers for expenses
incurred by taking another airline and has also offered to transport
the passengers home to Washington, DC, free of charge.

So let me get this straight: the nine Muslims who caused the flight
delay and scared other passengers profited from their misconduct?
Their airfare was refunded and they got a free flight home? Sounds
like a pretty good deal to me…is this a great country, or what?

United flight 22 — September 28, 2009. According to the KTLA.com, two
men of apparent Middle Eastern descentwere removed from a flight at
LAX, and the flight was delayed while the bomb squad searched the
plane. An article in the LA Times reported the incident as follows:
A law enforcement source said at least one of the men ran into a
restroom on the plane and appeared to hide while the New York-bound
jet was taxiing on the runway, according to the source, who spoke on
the condition of anonymity because the case was ongoing.
AirTran 297 — Nov 17, 2009. A group of ethnic passengers used
electronic devices on tarmac preparing for takeoff, changed seats,
moved around, ignored flight attendants’ instructions, and caused
flight delay as the plane returned to terminal.

UA 227 — Dec 9, 2009. A group of passengers believed to be of Middle
Eastern descent changed seats and allegedly moved other passengers’
luggage at the gate while the plane prepared for departure, prompting
their removal from the flight and bomb-sniffing dogs to check the
baggage.

Two possibilities that come immediately to mind are either that these
incidents are orchestrated as a ploy to create a scenario to litigate
for profit like the imams from US Airways Flight 300 — or something
more sinister is in the works. In the aftermath of Fort Hood, can we
afford to ignore warning signs of abnormal or pattern behavior any
longer?

It is clear that CAIR, the threat of lawsuits, and political correctness united to make us less safe. We were fortunate this time.

We call on the Obama administration to declare a new policy, not just protecting but praising, those who speak up when they witness Muslims or others behaving in a suspicious manner.

Weakening the CIA with threats of prosecution of agents is not the way to go.  But the Obama administration won’t be stopped.  If there is another al Qaeda attack in the United States, Heaven forbid, the American people will recognize Obama’s outrageous folly.

Credit to the Bush administration and our allies in the War on Terror.

Christian Science Monitor
December 15, 2008

Rules Of War

Ideological Clash Of Two Jihadi Titans Shakes Al Qaeda

By Caryle Murphy, Correspondent

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA – A bitter, year-long feud that has shaken Al Qaeda’s
ideological pillars grew even sharper last month. A former associate of
Ayman al-Zawahiri accused him of working for Sudanese intelligence, wearing
“women’s garments” to flee Afghanistan, and spreading an incorrect Islamic
theory of jihad.

Mr. Zawahiri “is only good at fleeing, inciting, collecting donations, and
talking to the media,” wrote Sayyed Imam al-Sharif in his latest attack on
Al Qaeda’s No. 2.

Sayyed Imam, serving a life sentence in Egypt, is an esteemed theoretician
of jihad whose ideas helped shape Al Qaeda’s ideology. But now he’s decrying
its stock in trade ­ mass murder ­ in a clash that is an example of how some
once-fierce zealots of violent jihad are having second thoughts.

“It is really an argument about … what means are militarily effective and
Islamically legitimate,” says William McCants, a Washington area-based
analyst of militant Islamism. Imam, he adds, is saying that only “a
guerrilla war conducted against enemy soldiers” is permitted.

Imam’s prison writings were preceded by a series of books and commentaries
from imprisoned members of Islamic Group, a group that waged a guerrilla war
against the Egyptian government in the 1990s. Their so-called “revisions”
renounced violence and some put forward ideas on how to peacefully create an
Islamic society.

Terrorism experts disagree on the impact that Imam’s scathing critiques of
Zawahiri and Al Qaeda will have on the global jihadi movement, particularly
since he writes from prison where he is believed subject to influence from
Egyptian and US intelligence agencies.

But his writings have put Zawahiri on the defensive. And they come amid
other pressures, including the disabling of several Al Qaeda-linked online
forums ­ presumably by Western and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies ­
and an intensification of US military activity in Pakistan’s tribal areas,
where Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden are believed to be hiding.

“One shouldn’t overestimate the impact of this [ideological feud] in the
overall war on terror, but it is definitely going to divert some of
Zawahiri’s creative energy away from operations,” says Thomas Hegghammer, a
fellow in Harvard Kennedy School’s international security program.

“Zawahiri’s support among jihadis is still strong, but he is losing the
media battle to convince the public that Al Qaeda is winning,” adds Mr.
McCants, who monitors Al Qaeda Web activity at jihadica.com. “That, coupled
with the US Predators attacks in Pakistan, put him under tremendous
pressure.”

Bruce Hoffman, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University and
author of “Inside Terrorism,” says he does not believe that Imam’s writings
are going to have a huge adverse impact on Al Qaeda’s hard-core followers.
If you are a hard-line militant, “are you going to listen to an elderly,
geriatric guy in an Egyptian prison?” Mr. Hoffman asks. “It’s not as if
Zawahiri himself changed his mind.”

Far more problematic for Al Qaeda, Hoffman says, is the sabotage of its
online forums, some of which have not been working since September. As the
principle means of communicating with followers and potential recruits,
their loss “has been a serious blow,” Hoffman says.

Imam, also known as Dr. Fadl, was a close ally of Zawahiri when Imam led
Egypt’s Islamic Jihad in the 1980s. His reputation as a top jihadi ideologue
rested on his books, particularly his 1994 “A Compendium for the Pursuit of
Divine Knowledge.”

But Imam and Zawahiri disagreed about many things and grew estranged. When
Imam stepped down as Islamic Jihad leader in 1993, Zawahiri took his place.
Though Al Qaeda cited Imam’s writings, he never joined the group.

In Nov. 2007, Imam released “Rationalizing Jihad in Egypt and the World,” a
book that refuted Al Qaeda’s terrorist tactics and ideology and was
especially critical of Zawahiri.

After months of heated debate among militants on jihadi online forums,
Zawahiri responded in March with a 200-page book called “Exoneration.” He
charged that Imam lacked credibility because he wrote from prison and was
supervised by US intelligence.

Last month, Imam’s reply to Zawahiri, a book titled “Denudation of the
Exoneration,” was serialized in Cairo’s Al Masri Al Youm newspaper. It also
was published at IslamOnline.net and in the Saudi-owned Al-Sharq al-Awsat
newspaper, according to McCants, who posted English summaries of the Masri
Al Youm installments on his site.

In the first, called “The Lies of Zawahiri,” Imam claims that Zawahiri told
him in 1993 that “he had to carry out 10 operations for the Sudanese in
Egypt and that he received $100,000 from them.”

Apparently aiming to play down Zawahiri’s importance inside Al Qaeda, Imam
asserts that “only three people knew of the 9/11 operation before it
happened: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Hafs al-Masri, and a third person ­
not Zawahiri.” The third person was only told 24 hours before the attack.

As for Al Qaeda’s idea of violent jihad, Imam calls it “a corrupt, wayward
school [of Islamic thinking] to justify excess in shedding blood.” In order
to sell it, the group launched “media propaganda to promote the corrupt idea
that America is the cause of all the ills afflicting Muslims.”

Imam’s latest attacks on Zawahiri are so vituperative that some analysts say
he has damaged his own credibility. “This is an embarrassment,” former
Islamic Jihad member Kamal Habib told Agence France-Presse in Cairo. “I
don’t think he realizes what this does to his image.”

McCants argues that Imam’s arguments will likely be most influential outside
Al Qaeda’s inner circle of die-hard jihadis. “We shouldn’t be assessing the
impact of Imam’s book on jihadis but rather on neutral pious, educated
Arabs, particularly high school and college-age youth, whom Imam considers
his primary audience,” McCants wrote on his website.

McCants also singles out Imam’s “vigorous rejection of the victimization”
theme in jihadist thinking.

“The cause of Muslims’ problems is Muslims themselves,” Imam writes. Noting
that Muslims are killing Sudanese in Darfur, Imam asks: “What was the reason
the US opened the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba for imprisoning Muslims? Bin
Laden’s stupidityŠ. Putting blame on others while not accepting it yourself
… is the school of Satan.”

Some analysts say Imam’s writings are not all that significant because he
does not reject jihad per se, only Al Qaeda’s tactics. But a total
abandonment of jihad would be tantamount to rejecting a Koranic concept
integral to Islam since its inception, leaving Imam with no credibility.

For centuries, jihad was embedded in the legal framework of Islamic law, or
sharia, making it pretty much the prerogative of an Islamic ruler, that is,
of the state. Sharia also imposed clear rules on jihad, prohibiting the
slaughter of innocent civilians, for example. It is this legal framework
that Al Qaeda has tossed aside in its glorification of jihad.

Perhaps Zawahiri’s strongest argument against Imam is that he is a prisoner.
Indeed, some passages in Imam’s latest book seem made-to-order for
intelligence agencies. For example, he writes, “Regardless of the legitimacy
of their presence, the American forces did not kill a single Muslim in Saudi
Arabia during their presence there after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.”

He does not mention Iraqi deaths caused by US forces during the war in Iraq.
Instead, he focuses on Al Qaeda in Iraq, which he said “killed far more
Iraqis than it killed Americans.”

Seven years ago, America was under attack. America’s first responders, law enforcement, and emergency specialists responded to that attack. Our preparedness specialists provided guidance on the types of terrorist threats that we might be facing in the weeks that followed. Preparedness details about how to respond to potential Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) terrorist threats were distributed. America created a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies to address the need for homeland security. Counterterrorism groups were created or expanded in the federal government and law enforcement; specialists in tactical areas were identified and recruited. From a military perspective, our National Guard patrolled major American airports and transportation hubs. On September 2001, Congress authorized the use of military force against those responsible the 9/11 attacks and nations that harbored such terrorists. A year later, Congress again authorized the use of military force, this time to address perceived threats by Iraq. America’s Homeland Security Department assessed potential terrorist targets and offered recommendations as to appropriate areas and types of threats that were the most likely and most vulnerable for “targeted” use homeland security funding and resources.
These resources were focused on tactical and targeted efforts to protect Americans and prevent terrorism. Such efforts were a reaction to the 9/11 attacks and the realization of the vulnerability of the American homeland to such attacks. Such reactive preparedness was and continues to be a priority for America. But we also need to reflect and gain a strategic awareness of the threat by asking who and what are we fighting, and why are they attacking us. We need to do more than just react, we need to plan, we need to think, and we need a real national strategy on the enemy.

Such strategic awareness and analysis is a part of any major endeavor. For our first responders today in an emergency circumstance, they try to think strategically. They will ask questions to triage an attack – is it an explosion, a fire, a chemical attack, a radiological attack? They will recommend actions, especially in an emergency situation, based on an understanding of the threat. Such strategic awareness and definition of the threat is imperative for effective actions by emergency responders.

Why isn’t such strategic awareness an imperative for America’s government leadership on the larger, ideological threat that is the basis for Jihadist terror attacks like 9/11?

Seven years after 9/11, most of our resources continue to remain focused exclusively on tactical measures and operations.

Seven years after 9/11, America’s governmental leadership still has no strategic definition of the enemy or its ideology.

Seven years after 9/11, America’s governmental leadership can’t even agree if they should use the word “Jihad.”

This exceptional commentary continues:

By our very identity as Americans, we have the obligation and the duty to confront those ideologies that are against equality and liberty, such as Islamic supremacism. We must mobilize our elected representatives and the American people in every area of life to take on this war of ideas. We must reveal those Islamic supremacist groups that seek to infiltrate America for what they are. We must not allow those who lack the courage or knowledge of what it means to be an American to represent us here in this country or to represent us to people around the world. We must demand that our government leaders acknowledge the ideological threat of Islamic supremacism to America. We must not tolerate leadership that continues to be in denial of this threat and that continues to refuse to develop a comprehensive, multi-faceted strategy against this threat.

In America, every life is precious. Unlike our enemy, we do not “love death.” Our respect for human life is another one of the human, inalienable rights that we defend as Americans. We respect and admire the sacrifices made by our law enforcement, our emergency rescue teams, our armed forces. We mourn every loss of life. We respect those who sacrifice their lives for our national cause.

Our brave men and women deserve the same type of courage that they give, and they deserve the same type of sacrifice that they make. This is why we must never tolerate a war without a strategic direction, without a defined enemy, and without a defined enemy ideology. Their sacrifices must never, never be made in vain. Those who have lost their lives and those who have dedicated their lives in such struggles must never be taken for granted. That would be inherently un-American.

The courage that we show in confronting this Islamic supremacist enemy is not only our personal sacrifice, it is also the courage of our convictions. It is our public demonstration and commitment to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. The world is watching America to see whether it truly believes in equality and liberty enough to confront the ideology of Islamic supremacism.

Let us hope that the attack or attacks will be thwarted by the U.S. and our allies.

Available here

(hat tip Leah)

Rauch has some important questions for Obama. Let’s hope McCain forces him to answer them, the Old Media won’t.

]]> http://wherelibertydwells.com/2008/08/22/obama-the-democrats-and-the-war/feed/ 1