Even if you throw everything else aside this justifies intercepting emails between Hasan and the Imam. The 9/11 Commission twice mentioned this guy in their report and suspect he had an operational role in the death of 3000 Americans. From page 230 of the report:

Quote:

---

At the Dar al Hijra mosque, Hazmi and Hanjour met a Jordanian named Eyad al Rababah. Rababah says he had gone to the mosque to speak to the imam, Aulaqi, about finding work. At the conclusion of services, which normally had 400 to 500 attendees, Rababah says he happened to meet Hazmi and Hanjour. They were looking for an apartment; Rababah referred them to a friend who had one to rent. Hazmi and Hanjour moved into the apartment, which was in Alexandria.75

Some FBI investigators doubt Rababah’s story. Some agents suspect that Aulaqi may have tasked Rababah to help Hazmi and Hanjour. We share that suspicion, given the remarkable coincidence of Aulaqi’s prior relationship with Hazmi. As noted above, the Commission was unable to locate and interview Aulaqi. Rababah has been deported to Jordan, having been convicted after 9/11 in a fraudulent driver’s license scheme

---

And no one thought communicating with this man that the commission couldn't find that likely had a role in the worst terrorist attack ever was worth a closer look?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

If I was a muslim, and believed that my religion was being hijacked by these terrorist, I would be ashamed. That is what I am waiting on the MSM to report on, major muslim groups repudiating the acts Nidal and his fellow jihadists.


G&P

---

You will wait a long time, whilst they might not agree with the terrorists actions you won't get very many repudiating the acts of fellow Muslims and in this latest attack is this fellow seen as a terrorist, a jihadist or simply as disturbed? The fact that he is a Muslim has been played down, the fact that he is a Palestinian has been played down, both of these factors should have been a red light, the fact that he was unhappy in his military role should have been a major signal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ex Steve and other Christians here have and continue to condemn the actions of killers proclaiming a mandate from God as justification for their actions.

The left seems very confused about this . Here is Chris Matthews as an example.
“apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?’ That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?”

Why is that even an issue ? AQ is a self professed enemy of the United States. Would Chris have had the same pause of confusion if a soldier during WWII had attempted to contact the German or Japanese ? Rediculous display of pc if you ask me.

Oh wait .....that's right ......it's no longer a "war".

---

Actually, as I understand it, contacting AQ is indeed a crime. So, as usual, Matthews is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

You think some Muslim - ANY Muslim - owes you an apology, or needs to make some statement or something to make YOU happy.

excon

---

Ex,
I was going to say that, but you mentioned it first.

I am not going to apologize for a crime someone committed on his own free will and him being a muslim does not make it a crime of Islam.

It is a sorry state of affairs to have those you pay to protect your own turn against you and commit murder.

I wonder what this means in the bigger picture.Would all muslims within the military and/or security departments be targets of a witch hunt?
Which has been happening at different levels even now-
Italian court finds CIA agents guilty of kidnapping terrorism suspect | World news | guardian.co.uk

Will I be harassed just because I have a muslim name, or will it be considered political correctness if I was left alone.

If all the red flags were present for Hasan Nidal leading up to something like this, why does the military not take responsibility,why does it have to be muslims who apologize.
And if he was such a lousy psychiatrist, why was he allowed to practice?



.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

If all the red flags were present for Hasan Nidal leading upto something like this, why does the military not take responsibility,why does it have to be muslims who apologize.
And if he was such a lousy psychiatrist, why was he allowed to practice?

---

Great questions!

If anyone is responsible for him, it's the psychiatrists who trained him. I understand that psychiatry is not the military's core mission, but they need to get better at it than this.

Even if Hasan had not cracked, he was clearly not a suitable person to be counseling soldiers in emotional distress.

Quote:

---

Will I be harassed just because I have a muslim name, or will it be considered political correctness if I was left alone.

---

People have been predicting this big backlash against Muslims since 9-11. It hasn't happened and it won't .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Do YOU think that YOUR side is above political correctness? Why do you use phrases like "enhanced interrogation technique" instead of torture.. Why don't you call "rendition" what it really is, which is kidnapping?

Is it because you want to soften those words? Isn't that the bane of political correctness in the first place? Or, do you just deny that the above example IS political correctness, simply because it's YOUR side who uses those phrases? I'll bet you do.

excon

---

Ex :

What do you say to the loved ones of those that died? 9/11 was a surprise, after 8 years, after all the information that was on hand on this terrorist, and yet innocent Americans are still being killed because you and the MSM and Obama want to be sensitive to the needs and the rights of these jihadists. Bush did not have 8 years after 9/11 to keep this country secure. This attack happened during Obama's watch, he has failed.



G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

Will I be harassed just because I have a muslim name, or will it be considered political correctness if I was left alone.

---

Were you previously harassed because you have a Muslim name? I don't know about anyone else but I tend to treat people like people regardless, the PC crowd are the ones who tiptoe around making a$$es out themselves in the process.

I don't know what qualifies as a "big backlash," but certainly muslims are harassed for being muslims. That's well documented. The question is not if but how much.

So what ? There are still plenty of places in the country where my being a Catholic subjects me to forms of harassment and ridicule .(in fact Catholic bashing is as American as apple pie) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so what ? There are still plenty of places in the country where my being a Catholic subjects me to forms of harrassment and ridicule .(in fact Catholic bashing is as American as apple pie) .

---

Hello again, tom:

Comparing how tough it is for you, a Catholic, to rampant racism just shows how out of tune you righty's are on the subject. I'm sure you made the same argument when black people were being hosed down by the cops in Alabama.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Comparing how tough it is for you, a Catholic, to rampant racism just shows how out of tune you righty's are on the subject. I'm sure you made the same argument when black people were being hosed down by the cops in Alabama.

excon

---

The fact that you see racism where there is none just shows how far out of touch you lefties are on the subject. Calling terrorist acts by their true name does not constitute racism. Likening the calling of terrorist acts by their true name to hosing down blacks in Alabama is a clear sign of tone deafness on YOUR part, not ours.

Elliot

I did not say it was tough . Please show me where Muslims are being hosed down here ? You can't because it isn't happening . My point was that in many ways it's still PC to bash Catholics where no one in popular culture would dare bash Muslims in the same manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

My point was that in many ways it's still pc to bash Catholics where no one in popular culture would dare bash Muslims in the same manner.

---

Hello again, tom:

I'm not going to be my usual flippant self with you. I believe you believe what you are saying. I even believe the Wolverine believes what he's saying...

I don't have any contrary proof to offer, either, other than what's happening all around you, yet you fail to see. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

My point was that in many ways it's still pc to bash Catholics where no one in popular culture would dare bash Muslims in the same manner.

---

Tom, every subgroup feels as you do, that people say things to and about them that they would never say about another group. In fact, all of them are right to some extent. People bash Catholics, women, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, and even, increasingly, white males.

But that doesn't make it right. It's wrong to speak disparagingly of Catholics and it's wrong to speak disparaging of Muslims. All these groups include both good people and bad.

And when a member of a subgroup commits a crime, that doesn't necessarily make it terrorism. By analogy, some men talk to one another about raping and torturing women as a way of exciting themselves sexually. They share violent pornography and generally talk the idea up. Is it terrorism if one of their group puts all this fantasy into action? Or is he just a violent criminal?

I guess the question I'm raising is, do you want to expand the definition of terrorism to include people formerly considered criminals? If so, then I think you have to use that new definition in every case where it applies.

Lets get back to reality . This guy contacted via the net an AQ recruiter . His wasn't the actions of a "criminal " .It was the action of a jihadist terrorist. Why ? Because he was making political statements consistent with a jihadists before his act. And if he is honest about it he will say that he considered his act the equivalent of the actions of a suicide/homicide bomber .

Also ;when I see Muslim clerics mocked in the popular culture the way Catholic priests and nuns are then I'll believe the culture is treating each equally.
There was world wide demonstrations ;some of them violent over the publishing of cartoons of Mohammed . Did you see Catholics and Christians simularily rioting when a movie depicting Jesus on a cross having sexual thoughts about Mary Magdellan was in circulation ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I guess the question I'm raising is, do you want to expand the definition of terrorism to include people formerly considered criminals? If so, then I think you have to use that new definition in every case where it applies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

lets get back to reality . This guy contacted via the net an AQ recruiter . His wasn't the actions of a "criminal " .It was the action of a jihadist terrorist.

---

Hello again, tom:

Frankly, trying to put the label "terrorist" on him, is political correctness in reverse.

I still want to know what material difference calling him a terrorist makes, unless you want to blame somebody else for what he did... That, or you want him sent to gitmo for a little torture...

Really, I don't know what the significance the word "terrorist" has. Do you have in mind a specific action, or punishment, or SOMETHING we should DO because he's a terrorist as opposed to just being a criminal??

Asking is right. What crime could you NOT consider terrorist? I have the same problem with the term "hate crime". I don't know what significant difference that makes either, except the establishment agrees that a hate crime criminal will serve MORE time than a guy who did the same thing but DIDN'T hate. If THAT'S what you want by calling him a terrorist, I'm cool with it. Well, I'm not cool with it, but at least I understand WHY you're calling him that.

The above is NOT to diminish or deny what he did, what his religion is, what he THOUGHT he was doing, what he SAID when he was doing it, who he told about what he was doing, or who he tried to get support from for what he was doing.

Given, however, the same identical set of circumstances, once could correctly label the killing of the abortion doctor, a terrorist act.. If one is terrorism, so is the other.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I don't have any contrary proof to offer, either, other than what's happening all around you, yet you fail to see. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

---

Ah, so the lack of the proof is the proof. Been smoking early, ex?

Sorry Ex terrorism is a political act of war. It is not the same as every other crime.

Quote:

---

Given, however, the same identical set of circumstances, once could correctly label the killing of the abortion doctor, a terrorist act.. If one is terrorism, so is the other.

---

Did I dispute that ? Here's another "criminal " that was a terrorist... Ted Kaczynski . He also attacked individuals for a political purpose . His cause was basically neo- Ludditism. Want to know another terrorist ? Obama's buddy William Ayers. He and the Weather Underground attacked targets for political reasons.

Get it yet ?

Evidenty the President thinks simularly . He is bringing the mastermind of the attacks on 9-11 to stand trial in Federal Court in Manhattan ;just a few city blocks from where 20,000 bones of their attack were dug up . I guess that was just another criminal act also .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Ah, so the lack of the proof is the proof. Been smoking early, ex?

---

Hello again, Steve:

What I'm saying is that Muslim backlash is ALL around you, yet you don't see it. So, there's NO proof that I can offer that'll be stronger than that which you already don't see.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

By analogy, some men talk to one another about raping and torturing women as a way of exciting themselves sexually. They share violent pornography and generally talk the idea up. Is it terrorism if one of their group puts all this fantasy into action? Or is he just a violent criminal?

---

This IS reality, Tom. You may not want to think about it because it makes you uncomfortable, but it's an everyday reality that men stalk, rape, torture and murder women. Murdering 13 women one at a time is not less important than murdering 13 people in 7 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Sorry Ex terrorism is a political act of war. It is not the same as every other crime.

---

Hello again, tom:

I got it. He committed an act of war. Cool. So, who are we going to bomb because he did it? What nation are we going to invade because he did it. Will he be any deader because we executed him as a criminal and NOT a terrorist? What are we going to DO about his terrorist act of war?

I don't have a problem calling him a terrorist. I have nothing invested either way. But, if it's just applying the WORD terrorist, who cares? I say again, what MATERIAL difference does it make?

I've asked that same question several times and nobody can give me an answer. That's because there IS no answer.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

What I'm saying is that Muslim backlash is ALL around you, yet you don't see it. So, there's NO proof that I can offer that'll be stronger than that which you already don't see.

---

And I'm telling you I can't see what isn't there. There is no "Muslim backlash" around me.

Remember how we've said that history will be kinder to Bush than you think it will? Read this blog from some avid Hillary supporters:

Quote:

---

Thank you former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush

We know absolutely no one in Bush family circles and have never met former President George W. Bush or his wife Laura.

If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of “Dubya” nearly every day…parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.

Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000…and how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day.

We were convinced that ANYONE who was president would have done what Bush did, and would have set that right tone of leadership in the wake of that disaster. President Gore, President Perot, President Nader, you name it. ANYONE, we assumed, would have filled that role perfectly.

Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush. We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11. He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone. More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.

Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day. The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day…and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.

As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack.

FOR HOURS.

The Bushes went and met privately with these families for HOURS, hugging them, holding them, comforting them.

If there are any of you out there with any connection at all to the Bushes, we implore you to give them our thanks…you tell them that a bunch of gay Hillary guys in Boystown, Chicago were wrong about the Bushes…and are deeply, deeply sorry for any jokes we told about them in the past, any bad thoughts we had about these good, good people.

You may be as surprised by this as we are ourselves, but from this day forward George W. and Laura Bush are now on the same list for us as the Clintons, Geraldine Ferraro, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and the other political figures we keep in our hearts and never allow anyone to badmouth.

Criticize their policies academically and intelligently and discuss the Bush presidency in historical and political terms…but you mess with the Bushes personally and, from this day forward, you’ll answer to us.

We hope someday to be able to thank George W. and Laura in person for all they’ve done, and continue to do. They didn’t have to head to Ft. Hood. That was not their responsibility.

The Obamas should have done that.

But didn’t.

Wouldn’t.

Thank goodness George W. is still on his watch, with wonderful Laura at his side.

We are blessed as a nation to have these two out there…just as we are blessed to have the Clintons on the job, traveling the world doing the good they do.

And we are blessed to have Cheney, wherever he is, keeping tabs on all that’s going on and speaking out when the current administration does anything too reckless and dangerous.

Cheney’s someone else we villainized and maligned in the past who we were also wrong about. There has never been a Vice President, including Gore, Biden, or Mondale, who was more supportive of gay rights than “Darth Cheney”. There has never been a Vice President more spot-on right about the dangers facing this country from Islamic terrorism.

We live in strange, strange times indeed.

We are now officially committed fans of George W. and Laura Bush. We are fans of Cheney. Our gratitude for them makes us newly protective of them, and the continued role they play in this country.

After the primary battle of 2008, we never thought we’d go back to Texas for anything, but sometime in 2010 we want to find some event in Dallas the Bushes will be at so at least one of us can go up to them, tell them we are deeply sorry for ever thinking ill of them, and thank them from the bottom of our hearts for their service to America.

We’re sure they will just stare at us and wonder why these gay Chicagoans are crying, but we don’t think we can get through a meeting with them without being emotional.

What they did at Ft. Hood for those families humbles us. Every day, the Bushes are most likely doing something just like it behind the scenes.

We hope if any of you encounter them you will let them know this is deeply appreciated beyond partisan lines.

We will never look at the Bushes, the Bush presidencies, or their legacies the same again…and someday when his presidential library is built, we will be so proud to visit there and tell anyone will listen about November 10th, 2009, the day we finally appreciated former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura.

Thank you for your service, Mr. President. We’re sorry we didn’t appreciate you while you were in office, but we thank Heaven we’ve wised up and can see the good you are out there doing, under the radar, today.

---

And thank you for your honesty...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Remember how we've said that history will be kinder to Bush than you think it will? Read this blog from some avid Hillary supporters:

---

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things...

You got this right wing comic named Miller, who USED to be a flaming lib... He's on with O'Reilly. Anyone who truly believed a liberal philosophy couldn't just change up at the drop of a hat, and adopt a conservative one. That is exactly what Miller did. Consequently, I don't believe he EVER believed in liberalism, any more than I now believe he believes in conservatism..

Having said that, I read what these people wrote. They were actually GUSHING, spilling over with admiration, not only for Bush, but for vice as well. Anybody who opposed Bush like they said they did, absolutely would not GUSH - certainly not about vice. Therefore, I can't believe they ever opposed him in the first place...

But, don't go away mad... I have softened in my stance. It was VICE who was the bad dude, and all HIS crony's Rummy, Wolfie and the rest who were running things. That wasn't good...

But, to Bush's credit, he disowned them in his second term, and it realllllly pissed vice off. THAT was pretty good. Whatever wrongs he did, he wound up being his own man.

But, the writers of that screed?? Puleez!

excon

You are mistaken in that flaming libs can't see the light and change, but no one said it had to be at the drop of a hat. You're just repeating the same old tripe I've heard time and again, no TRUE liberal could EVER abandon liberalism, if they do they just never believed it in the first place. What a crock.

I don't find it all that odd for someone to be able to have praise for both Bush and the Clintons, especially considering the amateur boob in the White House now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Evidenty the President thinks simularly . He is bringing the mastermind of the attacks on 9-11 to stand trial in Federal Court in Manhattan ;just a few city blocks from where 20,000 bones of their attack were dug up . I guess that was just another criminal act also .

---

The big show in NYC is about criminalizing our counter-terrorism efforts. It's a back door way to get all those government secrets out, rile the leftists over America's sins and bring light to all those Bush "crimes."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_i...s/viewpost.gif

If I was a muslim, and believed that my religion was being hijacked by these terrorist, I would be ashamed. That is what I am waiting on the MSM to report on, major muslim groups repudiating the acts Nidal and his fellow jihadists.


G&P

---

Found one on the Huffpos by Salam Al Marayati; executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.I don't agree with everything he says ;but I have no doubt about his sentiments.

Salam Al Marayati: Fort Hood: A Defining Moment for Muslim Americans

Thanks Tom for providing some proof that there are sane voices for American Muslim's.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ex


Hasan on Islam - washingtonpost.com


This is Hassan's grand rounds presentation at Walter Reed
Grand rounds is a MEDICAL presentation for teaching usuallly involving interesting, or difficult, or rare, cases in order to educate colleagues.

If there truly was a "backlash," how was Hassan allowed to present this?
Note page 18, 43, 44, 49.

You can't have a moment of silence for prayer at a public school, yet at a military hospital they can teach about Islam?



G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

You can't have a moment of silence for prayer at a public school, yet at a military hospital they can teach about Islam?

---

Where does it say that Islam is taught in military hospitals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Where does it say that Islam is taught in military hospitals?

---

Please try to keep up.

ITB posted a copy of a presentation that Hassan, the terrorist of Ft. Hood, gave at Walter Reed Army Hospital, which amounted to a screed about radical Islam and the evils of America.

That would constitute teaching about Islam in military hospitals, done in an official capacity.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Please try to keep up.

ITB posted a copy of a presentation that Hassan, the terrorist of Ft. Hood, gave at Walter Reed Army Hospital, which amounted to a screed about radical Islam and the evils of America.

That would constitute teaching about Islam in military hospitals, done in an official capacity.

Elliot

---

How many other teachings of Islam in an official capacity have occurred at military hospitals? There must be many since you and inthebox say they can teach this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

How many other teachings of Islam in an official capacity have occured at military hospitals? There must be many since you and inthebox say they can teach this.

---

Once isn't enough?

Again, ITB's comment is correct... it is forbidden to have silent prayer in public schools, yet this speech about radical Islam was permitted.

Why? Because it was politically correct to permit it.

Are you saying that in order for it to have been wrong it must have happened more than once?

What a silly argument. By that standard, Hassan's act of terrorist mass murder wasn't wrong because it only happened once.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Once isn't enough?

---

So anything that has been done once in any environment is enough to say that that environment expressly allows it? That's your argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So anything that has been done once in any environment is enough to say that that environment expressly allows it? That's your argument?

---

It would seem to me that if a speech is permitted in an official venue and in an official capacity, it IS policy and that that environment DID expressly allow it.

Despite the fact that Hassan was surrounded by military and medical superiors, he was permitted to FINISH the speech and was not sanctioned for GIVING the speech. Ergo, it was allowed.

Are you trying to argue that it wasn't allowed when it clearly was? I don't see the point of your argument. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

---

I've been watching you do it for years. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

It would seem to me that if a speech is permitted in an official venue and in an official capacity, it IS policy and that that environment DID expressly allow it.

---

Hello again, Elliot:

In other words, in order to protect against nuts from misrepresenting their policy, the Army needs to have somebody watching every presentation the Army makes...

You really don't listen to yourself...

excon

Mark Steyn wrote a great article about this in Maclean's. This guy wrote soldier of allah on his business cards, was reprimanded for encouraging patients to convert to Islam and praised suicide bombers yet amazingly, no one was willing to file a complaint against him because the army was afraid it would send a bad message to dismiss one of the few Muslims in the army. Political correctness killed 14 people, and they army brass should be ashamed. If he had been a Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski neo-nazi/militia, type they would have fired him immediately.

Get ready to be pi$$ed...

Quote:

---

Somebody at Fort Hood Should Be Walking the Plank [Andy McCarthy]

Prepare to be infuriated.

It's been brought to my attention by several reliable sources that the Defense Department has brought Louay Safi to Fort Hood as an instructor, and that he has been lecturing on Islam to our troops in Fort Hood who are about to deploy to Afghanistan. Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

Worse, last evening, Safi was apparently permitted to present a check (evidently on behalf of ISNA) to the families of the victims of last month's Fort Hood massacre. A military source told the blogger Barbarossa at the Jawa Report: "This is nothing short of blood money. This is criminal and the Ft. Hood base commander should be fired right now."

ISNA was identified by the Justice Department at the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing conspiracy trial as an unindicted co-conspirator. The defendants at that trial were convicted of funding Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars. This should have come as no surprise. ISNA is the Muslim Brotherhood's umbrella entity for Islamist organizations in the United States. It was established in 1981 to enable Muslims in North America "to adopt Islam as a complete way of life" — i.e., to further the Brotherhood's strategy of establishing enclaves in the West that are governed by sharia. As I detailed in an essay for the April 20 edition of NR, the Brotherhood's rally-cry remains, to this day, "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The Brotherhood's spiritual guide, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a fatwa in 2004 calling for attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, openly declares that Islam will "conquer America" and "conquer Europe."

Also established in 1981, the IIIT is a Saudi funded think-tank dedicated, it says, to the "Islamicization of knowledge" — which, Zeyno Baran (in Volume 6 of the Hudson Institute's excellent series, "Current Trends in Islamist Ideology") has aptly observed, "could be a euphemism for the rewriting of history to support Islamist narratives." Years ago, the Saudis convinced the United States that the IIIT should be the military's go-to authority on Islam. One result was the placement of Abdurrahman Alamoudi to select Muslim chaplains for the armed forces. Alamoudi has since been convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 23 years in federal prison.

As noted in this 2003 Frontpage report, 2002 search warrant links Safi to an entity called the "Safa Group." The Safa Group has never been charged with a crime, but the affidavit allegest its involvement in moving large sums of money to terrorist fronts. Safi was also caught on an FBI wiretap of Sami al-Arian, a former leader in the murderous Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). The year was 1995, and the topic of the discussion between Safi and al-Arian was Safi's concern that President Clinton's executive order prohibiting financial transactions with terrorist organizations would negatively affect al-Arian. More recently, al-Arian has been convicted of conspiring to provide material support to terrorism.

At Human Events a couple of months back, Rowan Scarborough had a disturbing report about the FBI's "partnering" efforts with Islamist groups — including the very same ISNA that the Justice Department had cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing conspiracy. A prominent figure in the report was Louay Jafi:

Safi is a Syrian-born author who advocates Muslim American rights through his directorship of ISNA's Leadership Development Center. He advocates direct talks between Washington and Iran's leaders. He has spoken out against various law enforcement raids on Islamic centers.

In a 2003 publication, "Peace and the Limits of War," Safi wrote, "The war against the apostates [non-believers of Islam] is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order."

He also wrote, "It is up to the Muslim leadership to assess the situation and weigh the circumstances as well as the capacity of the Muslim community before deciding the appropriate type of jihad. At one stage, Muslims may find that jihad, through persuasion or peaceful resistance, is the best and most effective method to achieve just peace." [ACM: Implicitly, this concedes there is a time for violent jihad, too.]

At ISNA's annual convention in Washington in July, one speaker, Imam Warith Deen Umar, criticized Obama for having two Jewish people — Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod — in the White House. "Why do this small number of people have control of the world?" he said, according to a IPT transcript. He said the Holocast was punishment for Jews "because they were serially disobedient to Allah."

[Steven] Emerson's group [the Investigative Project on Terrorism] collected literature at the convention approved for distribution by ISNA. It said the pamphlets and books featured "numerous attempts to portray U.S. prosecution of terrorists and terror supporters as anti-Muslim bigotry; dramatic revisionist history that denied attacks by Arab nations and Palestinian terrorists against Israel; anti-Semitic tracts and hyperbolic rants about a genocide and holocaust of Palestinians."

Asked if the FBI should sever ties with ISNA, Emerson said, "ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator. It's a Muslim Brotherhood group. I think in terms of legitimacy there should be certain expectations of what the group says publicly. If it continues to espouse jihad and anti-Semitism, I think it nullifies it right to have the FBI recognize it."

If you want to get a sense of the garbage our troops are being forced to endure in Fort Hood's classrooms, check out Jihad Watch, where my friend Bob Spencer has more on this episode and on his prior jousts with Safi, here, here, and here.

What on earth is this government doing, and will Congress please do something about it?

---

Good question, what the hell is our government doing? This is insane.