New York jihad suspect: Hey, I don't have Al-Qaeda ties, and I ain't talking to the Feds anymore

... you never know these days ...

ratchet up the "terror" level

Zazi was followed for more than a year. How many FBI agents were required to spend time -- even perhaps their entire time -- tracking the movements, to Pakistan and across America, of this one man. How much effort had to go into watching him while he was at home? How much time was spent wiretapping him? How much money was spent, that is, on just this one particular Muslim suspect? And since we have good reason to believe that a great many Muslims take Islam seriously, and therefore the duty to particiate, directly or indirectly, in Jihad -- the struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam -- out of every 100 Muslim immigrants, how many will provide the sea, or perhaps the swamp, in which these amphibious terrorists might swim?

When there is even a hint of Jakob-Creutzfeldt (Mad Cow) disease, millions or even tens of millions of cows are quarantined. Why should the United States, why should Great Britain, why should the Netherlands, why should Denmark, why should any Infidel nation-state inflict further financial pain, and political and legal trouble, and all kinds of woe, on its own indigenous non-Muslims (and on other, but non-Muslim, immigrants), by continuing to let Muslims into their countries? Do we have a sure-fire means of detecting which Muslims who claim to be "moderates" mean it, and which ones are merely feigning? Do we have a way to distinguish those who may mean it today, but have a change of heart tomorrow -- and we have seen example after example of the sudden metamorphosis, or so it would appear, of Muslim terrorists; the mike-hawash syndrome is hardly unique.

Since those are admitted to the countries of North America and Western Europe are having conferred on them a great benefit, the only ones who should receive such a benefit are those capable of recognizing it, being permanently grateful for it, and loyal to the nation-states that choose to confer it. But those who come from the world of Islam, and who continue to identify themselves as Muslims, when by now, at this point in history, a claimed ignorance of Islam cannot be used as an excuse by Believers), are taught clearly that there can only be a state of permanent war (though not necessarily open warfare) between Muslim and non-Muslim, Believer and Unbeliever. They have a duty to participate directly or indirectly in the struggle or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread and then the dominance of Islam, all over the world. They are taught that Muslims owe their sole loyalty to Islam and to fellow Muslims, and they are to distrust Infidels even when those Infidels appear to be generous and kind. Given all that, what conceivable sense does it make to continue to allow Muslims into the lands of the non-Muslims?

How much has the investigation of this one man, this Afghan, clearly not impressed with the aid lavished on Afghanistan, nor with the attempt by the Americans and other NATO forces to bring education to Afghan women, to build roads and other infrastructure, and to transfer wealth from Infidel taxpayers to Muslims in Afghanistan.

How much has the investigation of Zazi cost American taxpayers to date? How much money will the admission of the next 100 or 1000 or 10,000 Muslims to this country cost us, in money and in general disruption, and in swelling the ranks of those who may conduct Da'wa, in and out of prisons, who will inveigle American women to marry them and convert to Islam, who aon campuses will in and out of class, further the attempt to silence those who tell home truths about Islam, or suppress by shouting down or threatening those who defend Israel, or any number of other possibilities. Politicians may gradually come to accommodate, in certain districts, Muslims -- can a candidate whose district is Dearborn afford to recognize the very things I am stating here? -- as, in Great Britain, some in the Labour Party have done.

How much does this one man Zazi, cost us? And how many Zazis are there? And how many other Muslims who would protect or secretly (or openly) agree with assorted Zazis? And how many would not, perhaps only for tactical reaosns, at this point participate or support violent Jihad themselves, but are willing to defend it or explain it away? And how many are merely making Islam more powerful by spreading it, by swelling its ranks and hence its perceived power, by conducting Da'wa or merely by being here? What sense does it make, in light of all these considerations, to continue to allow into this country assorted najibullah-zazis from anywhere? How did he get here? Does he have a special skill that this country desperately needs? He has been working as a van driver at an airport. Was it necessary to allow Najibullah into this country for such or similar work? And can anyone maintain that a Muslim in a Muslim country is somehow a "refugee" in the only sense that makes sense -- someone fleeing persecution, as Jews and anti-Nazi non-Jews fleeing Germany were refugees? What exactly is the definition of "refugee" -- a word used so frequently, and so carelessly, as if it could legitimately be applied to anyone who wished, for example, simply to leave his country, possibly because it was economically paralyzed, or politically despotic, or routinely given to fits of violence. But despotism, economic stasis, and violence are the natural result of Islam: the ruler is to be obeyed; inshallah-fatalism limits the desire to work, and the prohibition on innnovation, bidah, stifles progress in manufacturing, farming, and every other economic activity; the aggression and violence of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, directed at the Infidels, not unnaturally affects how Believers talk with one another (the decibel-level, and the hysterical content, of much of ordinary talk), how they behave toward one another, and not least, how they behave toward other Muslims, both those of different ethnic or sectarian background, or toward those of different tribes, or even families. There is a violence never-far-from-the-surface of everyday life in lands where Muslims dominate and hysteria can be whipped up with amazing ease. All of this makes daily life most unpleasant, but is that any reason for Muslims to be allowed to enter, and settle deep within, the lands of Infidels, especially as they do not come as "refugees" fleeing persecution but as Muslims fleeing the unrecognized consequences of Islam. And what is still more distrubing, they come not as refugees from the Nazis or Communists came, dead-set against, and eager to work to bring about the defeat of, Nazism and Communism, but they come, uncomprehending of what it is they are fleeing, and unwilling to admit to themselves what it is about the West that they find so attractive (and what they find so attractive is the result of a society created not within, but entirely outside of, Islam), they bring Islam with themn, and attempt to defend, promote, and spread it.

We would not have tolerated a policy that allowed in those who came from Nazi Germany if they were defenders of the Nazis, nor would we have knowingly admitted from Russia or the Eastern European countries immigrants who were eager to leave Communist countries but themselves appeared to believe, and eager to defend and promote, Communism.

Why should it be different with Islam? Simply because, faute de mieux, we call this Total Belief-System a "religion"? Is that it? Is that the whole reason?

One narrative of what's currently going on here is that the FBI shared intelligence with the NYPD and the NYPD went public to err on the side of caution...thus blowing the entire investigation before the i's were dotted and t's crossed. And this is the great quandary for law enforcement: Delaying the rolling up of terror suspects in order to gather more evidence risks not only potential loss of life (which is obviously the main consideration), but also a potential scandal of 9-11-type trooferism, i.e., "they knew about it, but let it happen anyway"...which will destroy careers and cripple law enforcement.

The alternative is moving too soon and having the entire thing fall apart in court, as may end up being the case here. I hope to God I'm wrong.

When armed, organized and well financed combatants attempt to sneak up on civilians and blow them to bits, for whatever reason, they cease to be candidates for the kind of legal treatment reserved for civilized people, or even garden variety criminals. The US government's failure to acknowledge the state of war between fundamental Islam and western culture means that Islamic terrorist activity is dealt with as a criminal instead of a military matter, which is manifest idiocy.

We cannot continue to treat islamic domestic terrorist activities is as a law enforcement problem. These investigations are very complex, costly and reveal our investigative techniques to the terrorists who continually revise their methods only to try again. These activities are really acts of war supervised, trained, paid for and promoted by foreign powers. During a trial we have to identify valuable informants which compromises future investigations. A perfect example of this the Eqyptian informant we had to give up after the first World Trade Center bombing. In the current case the Feds had to move before they had all the details because they really could not sit back and let something terrible happen. They had to step in prematurely. I believe we have to attack the problem of terrorism by attacking the ideology and those who are promoting and financially supporting violent jihad on the internet, in books, in mosques etc...Immigrants must be held accountable and we need laws whereby they can be expelled for mere association with this ideology. Mosques teaching lesser jihad should be closed. We must hold nations accountable who support jihadist activity as well. The 'war on terror' or better yet 'Islams war with the infidels' will not be won with bombs or by placing a few terrorists caught planning acts of terror in jail.

If he does not have ties to Al-Qaeda, then perhaps he has ties to some other group that follows the Al-Qaeda ideology.

Zazi is such an innocent bloke. Why do you victimise him? It's really terrible what's happening to all these nice guys whose only crime is to be adherents of the religion of peace(TM). Oh, hang down your head, Tom Dooley...

If he does not have ties to Al-Qaeda, then perhaps he has ties to some other group that follows the Al-Qaeda ideology.

Islam, they all follow Muhammad.

Hugh writes:

"When there is even a hint of Jakob-Creutzfeldt (Mad Cow) disease, millions or even tens of millions of cows are quarantined."

In fact, when there is evidence of any kind of public health danger with food products, they do not merely pull some of the product off the shelves: they pull all of them off the shelves. The reason for this is screamingly logical: there is no way of knowing which products on the shelves are tainted, and which are not. Even though it is likely that most of the product is harmless, nevertheless, they conclude, rationally, that they must treat them all as dangerous, until such time as they have located the source of the problem and rectified it.

This is exactly the same problem we have with Muslims. The only logical conclusion is to treat them all as dangerous. Indeed, the problem with Muslims is even worse than the analogical problem of tainted food: for, there is no conceivable point in time in the indefinite future at which the source of the problem will be rectified. Unfortunately, too many within the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement persist in being incoherent about this at best, or obtuse at worst; and therefore tend to enable the PC MC agenda in its even more irrational if not virtually treasonous defense of Muslims.

Further Reading:

Warning Labels on Islam

Hugh wrote,"Why should it be different with Islam? Simply because, faute de mieux, we call this Total Belief-System a "religion"? Is that it? Is that the whole reason? "

As USUAL,Hugh puts it RIGHT ON THE TARGET!

That is IT exactly , Hugh.

It is TOTAL TOTALITARIANISM that CONTROLS its Followers by DEMANDING BLIND OBEDIENCE "Mandated by "Allah" and in Dar Al-Harb(us)DEMANDS All the Status and Protections of a 'Major" Religion,all the while using our Freedoms and Protections to ADVANCE its WAR/JIHAD on us.

It is the most UNIQUE and DANGEROUS THREAT this GREAT NATION has ever faced,and I KNOW American History and therefore do not make that statement lightly.

Adding to the THREAT is the Dhimmi Enabler Role being played by the LEFT-WING FOOLS.

CHOI, now if only Spencer would agree with Hugh on this particular point...

CHOI, now if only Spencer would agree with Hugh on this particular point...

Via Barbarosa @ MyPetJawa:

Al Qaeda operative had $50k in unsecured loans from bailout banks

Contemplate Glen Beck's synopsis of Cloward Piven/Alinsky/current administrations strategies - & connect the dots to a most unholy alliance with global jihad.

Correction to link for Glen Beck's synopsis:

Glenn Beck Plays Connects The 60s Radicals (Marxists/Communists) To Current Government . . . from weasel zippers/ibloga

the incorrect youtube link is for another video: Michael Savage interview with Andrew Breitbart discussing similar topics. Both worth viewing.

To be brutally honest, a few successful attacks of just the sort they contemplated might crumble the layers upon layers of defensive denial Americans have cocooned themselves in since 9/11. Our national cowardice, self-deceit, delusion, obsession with idiotic 'personalities' and election of an out and out traitor to lead us....we are due for a REAL wake-up. A few thousand dead now vs. millions of nuked Americans later on.

A few more thousand Americans dead would just be more attacks from the tiny minority of extremists who have nothing to do with the vast majority of Muslims, of course. The threshhold is obviously set irrationally high.

gravenimage & hesperado-

This is a country that used to threaten war against tinpot dictators if they dared to hold an American sailor or two and our attitude was "How DARE they do that to an AMERICAN" Now our Muslim Christian Hawaiian White Black Indonesian Kenyan Community Organizer runs all over the world with a 'kick me I'm American' sign on his ass.

He's from Afghanistan.

WHY do we let people from uncivilized states come here? (I suppose it can be argued that the USA should not check religion when permitting entry to this country; but it should be self-evident that the US should turn away EVERYBODY from lawless states such as Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.)

(Update- I'm watching Fox News; the crawler at bottom says Zazi has now been arrested.)

=========================================
PS_ epistemology @ Sept 19 4:14 pm
"all these nice guys whose only crime is to be adherents of the religion of peace"

I'd correct this slightly: the Religion of Pieces (as in, "blown to pieces")

"our Muslim Christian Hawaiian White Black Indonesian Kenyan..."

Obama's a walking stir-fry!

Gravenimage,

I appreciate the validation...and as you insist, Hesperado IS RIGHT, there is a threshold now, that whatever the nature of the impending attack, whoever the perpetrators are, there will be an instantaneous cottage industry devoted to the proposition that the US government itself was behind it in order to justify new and uglier "atrocities" against the Muslim world. The purveyors of this slander will be select company...a small coterie who knows full well that they are perpetrating a falsehood, but those who buy into their window-dreessing will number in the millions...and will have double-digit percentage of believers in polls. The end result is that though only a (significant) MINORITY will believe the BIG LIE, their noise will be sufficient to muddy the waters even in the minds of the majority as regards to how we should respond.

I'm convinced that as a society, we've reached a point of self-abasement and lost identity (multiculturalism in action) that WHATEVER the extent of future atrocities committed against the West in the name of Jihad, the calls for restraint and self-recrimination will be sufficiently cacophonous that a cogent, meaningful response will be rendered inoperable...(particularly under the current administration).

My solution? To get drunk on the weekends, continue pursuing my personal goals, visit this web-site half a dozen times a day, continue to try to reach whomever is willing to listen...and in the process, enjoy football, music, fall colors, the beauty of the fairer sex, and other aspects of existence that give life its gusto.

I know it sounds lame folks, but it's the best I can do.

BIG NEWS

The head of the Iranian American Political Action Committee, Hassan Nemazee, has been sued by both Citigroup (with allegation of fraud), and HSBC Bank corp.

Apparently Nemazee is one of the biggest donors to Democratic candidates, giving in excess of $100,000 per candidate.

Could this be how Barrack Obama was elected and how Congress was bought and paid for.

This is not really off topic, because in Islam, all things interlock organically and systemically:

The commentor "darcy" in another thread below linked to an article by Phyllis Chesler, a person one might have thought was firmly within the orbit of the Anti-Islam Movement, who wrote a most unfortunate article in which she tries to nuance the evil danger of one facet of Islam into acceptability and respect:

"...in order to ban hijab in an even-handed way," writes Chesler, "one would also have to ban the Catholic hijab worn by nuns, the Jewish headscarf worn by ultra-orthodox and Chasidic women, and the various Hindu and Sikh head coverings."

Huh? No, one would not "also have" to do any such thing. The "Catholic hijab" is not a symbol of repression of women, nor is it a symbol of benighted women in codependent brainwashed Stockholm Syndrome solidarity with the expansionist supremacism of an ideology, as the Muslim hijab most certainly is. Chesler is making an equivalency where none exists. This is not only preposterous, not only insulting to Catholics, Jews, and Hindus everywhere, it is downright repellant and near treasonous.

"Doing so might interfere with the separation of religion and state that many Western governments hold dear."

It's the Muslims who push and wear the hijab as one symbolism among many of their religio-political supremacism who are interfering with the separation of religion and state. To ban it -- as France and Kemalist Turkey do -- is to protect that important Western virtue of separation of religion and state. Chesler not only seems to have learned nothing in the last few years, she is showing signs of regressing.

It gets worse:

"But there is another reason to consider not banning hijab for adults. I spent last week in Rome, at the International Conference on Violence Against Women, An Initiative of the Italian Presidency of the G 8. I am deeply grateful to the Italian government, specifically to the Italian Minister for Equal Opportunities, the Honorable (and beautiful) Maria Rosaria Carfagna for this opportunity. Here is where I spent time with a dynamic, truly amazing group of religious and secular Muslim feminists. Three wore hijab, two did not, and one wore it sometimes, but not always. Most agreed that headcovering is more of a custom than a religious commandment and that one can be a very good Muslim without it."

Now Chesler, after having spent time with a few charming Muslimas, is falling for that old "it's only a cultural thing" line. Is this the same Chesler who has shown signs of really getting it about the Islamic treatment of women? What has happened to her? Has she caught the Glazovian Flu one of whose main symptoms is the slowing down of the asymptotic rate of progress and sometimes reversing it towards more compassion for the vast majority of Muslims who must be nice, decent people?

"My point: They are all modern, eloquent, high achievers; smart, strong, strong-minded, pro-Western, pro-integration, and pro-women’s rights. They have won my heart and I view these Muslim feminists who are fifty years old or younger as the true descendents of Second Wave Western feminism."

Chesler has gone soft, just because she met some charismatic Muslimas. It should be a non-negotiable principle: you can't have feminism and wear an Islamic veil. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. And furthermore, all these Muslimas whom Chesler was so smitten by revere Mohammed, the Godfather of Islamic misogyny. You cannot have a Muslim feminist. It doesn't exist, except in the addled heads of Western individuals deformed in one way or another by PC MC. Shame on Phylis Chesler.