Well, that seems rather obvious at this point. From WND, with thanks to EPG:
Osama bin Laden might not have had the means to carry out a mass casualty attack on the United States on the eve of the elections, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.U.S. intelligence analysts believe this was the reason why bin Laden released a videotape to discuss al-Qaida and the American presidential elections. They said bin Laden, in his first video appearance in three years, wanted to bolster the morale of his followers who have been waiting for such a strike.
Over the last two months, the CIA has lowered the prospect of a major al-Qaida attack. Intelligence sources said information that was relayed to the U.S. intelligence community of a specific attack this summer has been discredited.
They said the U.S.-Pakistani operation in Waziristan in August rounded up several senior al-Qaida operatives along the Afghan border and in Britain and damaged the organization's communications network.
But there is another videotape released by al-Qaida that has U.S. intelligence worried. And that is a 75-minute tape by a U.S. national termed "Azzam the American." Azzam claims to be an al-Qaida member and warns that the streets of America will "run with blood."
The U.S. intelligence community believes that Azzam, whose face was shrouded, could be the key to al-Qaida's real intention. Some analysts believe Azzam is really Adam Gadahn, also known as Adam Pearlemen, an American Muslim from Orange County, California. The FBI has assessed that Gadahn joined al-Qaida in the late 1990s and has been missing since 2000.
A second individual was heard on the Azzam tape. He is off-camera but asked Gadahn several questions. The assessment is that he is Adnan El Shukrijumah, a former Florida resident and an al-Qaida operative sought by the United States for more than a year.
The big question: Are Gadahn and El Shukrijumah in the United States and planning al-Qaida's encore to 9/11?
Never been a shred of doubt that if they could attack us, they would attack us.
Conciliatory sounding taqiyya notwithstanding....
Time we take out these thugs ruthlessly....can't help but be delighted at the thought of permanently shutting doewn the jihad factory.
Like Johnny Cash said:
" When the man comes around..."
I think we are getting a better undersrtanding about how the money flows and how we can choke these bastards off until they are destitute. Watch the Saudis, and watch the 'Islamic Charitiies' etc. If we're smart, we can go a long way towards alleviating the problem just by choking off the funds. Screw with their communications and block movement. Profiling these guys isn't such a bad idea. Sorry if you're a muslim male from 20-40, but if you're not a terrorist, you won't mind a little extra scrutiny. Everyone has to make some sacrifices when a country (hell the whole free world) is at war. We have to fight the jihad on multiple fronts and not get fixated only on armed resistance.
The phrase "Muslim charities" is a bit misleading. It may evoke visions of the Salvation Army, or Christian Children's Fund, or United Jewish Appeal, all of which do contribute support, to non-sectarian causes.
But Muslims are obligated to give to Muslims alone, to charities "in the service of Allah." And even if it were possible -- and it is not -- to carefully monitor these charities, in many places, as in Saudi Arabia, money is simply automatically deducted from individual holdings for the purposes of zakat. It is impossible to monitor these banks.
Furthermore, the failure to define this war of self-defense by all Infidels, against all manifestations of Jihadist activity (which links Kashmir and southern Sudan, Israel and Holland, Madrid and the Moluccas, New York and Bangladesh), means that efforts are directed at preventing the funding of "terrorists."
But what about the huge sums -- $70 billion from Saudi Arabia alone -- that have gone to support mosques all over the Western world, and madrasas that churn out people who believe, even more fervently and fanatically than other Muslims, in the centrality and sanctity of the Jihad to spread Islam, or to "remove the obstacles" to its spread (which means that the "defensive" war of Islam covers what most of us would rightly call an "offensive" war -- for any attempt by Infidels to stop the spread of Islam, to inhibit its power and presence in the Lands of the Infidels, is regarded as "aggression" which must be "defended against" -- thus, the murder of Theo van Gogh was an act of "defense" in Islamic terms).
Of course efforts should be made to trace money, to seize money, to take whatever money that is seized and apply it to the counter-Jihad, or to give it to the victims of Jihad. But the Western world is defining too narrowly its aims. All Saudis, with their vast holdings in the West, have taken their money, in a sense, from the oil revenues, from whatever the House of al-Saud permits them. Their vast estates and holdings in the West can be treated, and eventually will be treated, the way German assets including the assets of German nationals, were treated by the Allies during World War II -- by right, they can be seized.
But most of all, the war of self-defense against the Jihad has to include an energy policy that will not "make American energy-independent" (because oil is fungible, this will do nothing to diminish Arab and Muslim oil reveneus, and is essentially a foolish slogan, if soothing to some audiences), but rather will work to constantly diminish -- as, by the way, the environment also requires -- the demand for fossil fuels. Whatever it takes, in subsidizing mass transit, in ending the SUV craze, in car pools, in tax credits ten times what they are today for renewable energy sources, in copying France in one thing (and one thing only) -- its intelligent exploitation of nuclear energy (if Hans Bethe and Andrey Sakharov said it was necessary, and safe, that is good enough for me).
Questions that I would sincerely appreciate if some of you would kindly answer:
In the past 6 months:
1) I have come in contact with arabs or muslims in my workplace, place of worship, or neighborhood.
(y / n)
2) engaged muslims or arabs in a face to face dialogue about Islam.
3) attended a lecture at a church which discussed Islam
4) attended an interfaith discussion about Islam and other religions
5) watched a television documentary about Islam
6) physically attended a lecture or service at a local mosque
7) physically attended a lecture or service at a local synagogue
8) attended a lecture at a local college or university about Islam
9) come in contact with arabs or muslims in the course of my daily affairs
10) befriended at least one arab or muslim in the course of my daily affairs
Thank you for your comments.
If you do not want to post your answers to the 10 survey questions here, please email them to me at info@amwanet.org
All replies will be answered. These survey questions will be posted in other similar forums and web logs.
Thank you for your participation.
Anyone who chooses to answer this moron, remember:
He is trying to classify what kind of Hate you suffer from. Which is an Outright LIE about YOU.
He is totally bogus. Why do you keep bothering with him? So he can make a report to post on islamic hate sites around the world?
Don't let this bastard get away with an attempt to discredit. Do not let him do what the Left will be pleased to have him do! Think!
I post to no islamic hate sites.. wouldn't know where such sites are found. Perhaps Gary does.
I believe most such sites have long since been removed from the internet. Perhaps Gary knows others.
I ask these survey questions to support research I am doing in this forum and others about neo-fascism as its related socio-psychosis.
I'm looking to see what sociopathology lies beneath the surface for those who hate for the sake of hatred, and those who hate based on perception of other groups, but are open to new information. I call these groups for the purpose of this survey, "inducers", inductive reasoners, and "deducers" deductive reasoners.
The hypothesis is that deductive reasoners will be receptive and open to new information, facts, and ideas as they emerge. Inductive reasoners have already pasted the analysis stage and formulated social theory, so they are not open to new information as it may emerge.
In the ranking of deductive reasoners, the "deducers" at the type of the hierarchy should be the most open-minded reasoners, able to adjust perceptions based on new facts, and at the bottom, those more affected by extraneous information, such as cohort biases.
Here are the questions.
Questions that I would sincerely appreciate if some of you would kindly answer:
In the past 6 months:
1) I have come in contact with arabs or muslims in my workplace, place of worship, or neighborhood.
(y / n)
2) engaged muslims or arabs in a face to face dialogue about Islam.
3) attended a lecture at a church which discussed Islam
4) attended an interfaith discussion about Islam and other religions
5) watched a television documentary about Islam
6) physically attended a lecture or service at a local mosque
7) physically attended a lecture or service at a local synagogue
8) attended a lecture at a local college or university about Islam
9) come in contact with arabs or muslims in the course of my daily affairs
10) befriended at least one arab or muslim in the course of my daily affairs
Thank you for your comments.
If you do not want to post your answers to the 10 survey questions here, please email them to me at info@amwanet.org
All replies will be answered. These survey questions will be posted in other similar forums and web logs.
Thank you for your participation.
What hateshutup is really about:
http://www.geocities.com/savepenry/nazi.html
This person is attempting to use the same methods.
What Gary doesn't know about zionism, nazism, and orthodox jewry:
http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/071604Hague.cfm
I post to no islamic hate sites.. wouldn't know where such sites are found. Perhaps Gary does.
I believe most such sites have long since been removed from the internet. Perhaps Gary knows otherwise. If you have links to some of these jihadist sites, please share them as I would like to include them in my research as well.
I ask these survey questions to support research I am doing in this forum and others about neo-fascism as its related socio-psychosis.
I'm looking to see what sociopathology lies beneath the surface for those who hate for the sake of hatred, and those who hate based on perception of other groups, but are open to new information. I call these groups for the purpose of this survey, "inducers", inductive reasoners, and "deducers" deductive reasoners.
The hypothesis is that deductive reasoners will be receptive and open to new information, facts, and ideas as they emerge. Inductive reasoners have already pasted the analysis stage and formulated social theory, so they are not open to new information as it may emerge.
In the ranking of deductive reasoners, the "deducers" at the type of the hierarchy should be the most open-minded reasoners, able to adjust perceptions based on new facts, and at the bottom, those more affected by extraneous information, such as cohort biases.
Here are the questions.
Questions that I would sincerely appreciate if some of you would kindly answer:
In the past 6 months:
1) I have come in contact with arabs or muslims in my workplace, place of worship, or neighborhood.
(y / n)
2) engaged muslims or arabs in a face to face dialogue about Islam.
3) attended a lecture at a church which discussed Islam
4) attended an interfaith discussion about Islam and other religions
5) watched a television documentary about Islam
6) physically attended a lecture or service at a local mosque
7) physically attended a lecture or service at a local synagogue
8) attended a lecture at a local college or university about Islam
9) come in contact with arabs or muslims in the course of my daily affairs
10) befriended at least one arab or muslim in the course of my daily affairs
Thank you for your comments.
If you do not want to post your answers to the 10 survey questions here, please email them to me at info@amwanet.org
All replies will be answered. These survey questions will be posted in other similar forums and web logs.
Thank you for your participation.
To any and all posters at Jihad Watch:
Not that you asked, but I don't think you or anyone else should answer this person "Hatshepsut." To do so is to allow him or her to put you on trial, thus shifting the focus away from the global jihad.
Another Muslim, Chan'ad Bahraini, recently asked me all sorts of questions about where I have been in the Middle East, what languages I speak, etc. I suspected that any answer I gave him, he would use for his own purposes, so I declined to answer (whereupon, of course, he used that). But it is a digression: this site, and the anti-jihad effort in general, is not about me. It is not based on where I have been, or what I know or don't know. It is meant to draw attention to the manifest activity of Islamic jihadists, and the ways they use Islamic texts to justify themselves and recruit. Those activities are a fact regardless of who I am.
The moral of the story: don't let attention be diverted away from the jihad.
There have been occasionally some posters here who are over the top, and I have consistently stated that those who call for genocide, nuking Mecca, etc., are not welcome here. However,
"Hatshepsut" is a deluded individual who believes that to resist violent jihad is racism (despite the ideological character of the conflict, transcending all races), that Jews perpetrated 9/11 (despite Osama's avowal that he did it), and that apparently any anti-jihad sentiment is "hate" (despite the fact that it is not Western non-Muslims who are perpetrating religious violence around the globe).
Just don't answer. This site is not about you and how many Muslims you had lunch with. This site is about the global jihad, which continues despite "Hatshepsut's" efforts to divert attention away from it.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Like it or lump it, Osama is but a figment of the imagination of many created by the same govt cabal that runs the White House. That is, a hollow sham introduced at the right moment of time to suit current political necessities.
Consider the 'unexpected' appearance of the frightful al-Qaidah leader on TV on the eve of Bush's re-election. Shouldn't that be suspicious and thought-provoking? It may have been the much needed shift of balance in Bush's favour. Has it never struck you?
Not that I'm so vehemently opposed to G.W.B., but check this out. An anecdote (from far-off Russia):
An unprecedented US election outcome has occurred - a tied vote, vote in vote square. The Yanks are completely embarassed - this has never before happened in American history.
The supreme electoral committee undertakes to hold the final round of the presidential race, and this one is going to take place in Alaska, the ultimate fisherman contest. The president-to-be will be decided in a 3-day fishing trial.
The 1st day of the competition is out, senator Kerry has beaten his rival by 5 fishes to 0. The 2nd day is past, Mr Kerry has increased his catch by 3, Mr Bush's result remains at the same level.
Next day G.W., facing inevitable defeat, sends his vice Mr Chainey to find out what dastardly scheme Kerry and Edwarda are up to.
End of day 3. The score is 10:0, a confident win by senator John Kerry. Dick Chainey reports to his boss after having infiltrated the enemy's camp: "You were as always right, George. They've cheated badly. They've been rigging up ice-holes!!!"
A 'sociologist' who not only repeatedly meddles with his own 'study' but attempts to guide the responses of his 'subjects' with polemics, which are themselves full of contradictions, prejudice, falsehoods, and absolute nonsense? A sociologist, whose hypothesis (if one can call it that; I question whether or not this fellow knows what a hypothesis is. He does not know what a thesis is.) is utterly unintelligible ('deductive vs. inductive reasoners'...what a crock)? I am afraid this homunculus (who is obviously ashamed of his size) has been watching a too much Cartesian theatre: he has very nearly become a disembodied soul whose senses organs have ceased to function: metaphorical eyes watching over and over again reruns of imaginings.
Well, we might look forward to the publication of this research in the Friends of Islam Social Science Journal, a repository for work of challenged, Jihad-friendly students, who could not pass SOC 101 at your local community college, after several tries...
On the other hand, I have never encountered a socio-psychotic homunculus before; weird little buggers aren't they?
Hmmm. Maybe someone in al-Qaeda's talking to the good guys.
What is it that has made so many come crawling out from under the rotting woodwork at this time? Is it the heat generated by an awakening West--wise to the antics of Islamic dreamers of reconquest? It is that, compounded by the recent loss of credulity in the politics requiring political correctness and the equivalent value of all cultures regardless of their core beliefs.
to hugh: agreement with your post. however, i must say it is my opinion that the movement away from fossil fuels will be better served by free-market mechanisms. (government can really only do so much, and government bureacracies can waste taxpayer money on rather shoddy results. better to let risk-taking investors and enterprising entrepreneurs play the game.) already venture capitalists seek out such futuristic companies. the increase in commodity prices along with the increased acceptance of hubbert peak analysis of oil supply is pressuring the markets to develop futuristic energy supplies. see the following for some interesting reading
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/Rempel/