| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Looks like he got away with it, too
"There is good reason to believe Anwar Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States, including plotting attacks against America and our allies." But Aulaqi was American-born, indicating that the jihad problem, while it contains a very serious immigration component, is not solely an immigration matter.
"Imam From Va. Mosque Now Thought to Have Aided Al-Qaeda," by Susan Schmidt for the Washington Post (thanks to all who sent this in):
Even before the 2001 terrorist attacks, American-born imam Anwar al-Aulaqi drew the attention of federal authorities because of his possible connections to al-Qaeda. Their interest grew after 9/11, when it turned out that three of the hijackers had spent time at his mosques in California and Falls Church, but he was allowed to leave the country in 2002.New information later surfaced about his contacts with extremists while in the United States. Now, U.S. officials are saying for the first time that they believe that Aulaqi worked with al-Qaeda networks in the Persian Gulf after leaving Northern Virginia. In mid-2006, Aulaqi was detained in Yemen at the request of the United States. To the dismay of U.S. authorities, Aulaqi was released in December.
"There is good reason to believe Anwar Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States, including plotting attacks against America and our allies," said a U.S. counterterrorism official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
U.S. authorities were limited in how far they could push Yemen to hold Aulaqi, officials said, because they have no pending legal case against him. The officials said ongoing intelligence-gathering efforts here and abroad prevented them from providing details about Aulaqi's suspected activities.
Aulaqi, 36, was the spiritual leader in 2001 and 2002 of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, one of the largest in the country. In a taped interview posted this New Year's Eve on a British Web site, Aulaqi said that while in prison in Yemen, he had undergone multiple interrogations by the FBI that included questions about his dealings with the Sept. 11 hijackers.
"I don't know if I was held because of that, or because of the other issues they presented," Aulaqi said without elaborating. He said he would like to travel outside Yemen but would not do so "until the U.S. drops whatever unknown charges it has against me." Aulaqi did not respond to requests for an interview.
[...]
After 9/11, Aulaqi publicly condemned the attacks. But in comments published in English on Sept. 17, 2001, on IslamOnline, Aulaqi suggested that Israelis may have been responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that the FBI "went into the roster of the airplanes and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default."
Weeks after leaving the United States in the spring of 2002, he posted an essay in Arabic titled "Why Muslims Love Death" on the Islam Today Web site, lauding the fervor of Palestinian suicide bombers. Months later he praised them in English at a lecture in a London mosque that was recorded on videotape.
[...]
Dar al-Hijrah's spokesman and others in leadership positions at the mosque did not respond to requests for interviews for this article.
Does anyone there agree with Aulaqi's point of view? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
Posted by Robert at February 27, 2008 11:52 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"American-born imam Anwar al-Aulaqi"
Is this another Doug Hooper? What is his original name? Bob Smith?
That smug expression is quite nauseating.
Posted by: darcy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 27, 2008 12:15 PM
He's gone from the country. There are two things we can do:
1. Keep him out of the US, permanently.
2. American allies should deny him entry to their countries, permanently.
He should be restricted to Yemen for one reason: no one else will have him. Any country that accepts him is no friend of the United States and no friend of peaceful people.
Posted by: PMK at February 27, 2008 12:31 PM
"But Aulaqi was American-born, indicating that the jihad problem, while it contains a very serious immigration component, is not solely an immigration matter."
There is no rational distinction between the problem of Muslim immigrants, and the problem of Muslim citizens, in any Western country, other than that based upon the dubious theory that Muslim citizens are more Westernized and therefore more "moderate". Many may be -- but the problem is, we can't tell the difference, except superficially. With the escalating threat of more attacks, likely using one or more of the various flavors of WMDs, we simply don't have the luxury of making any such distinctions.
at February 27, 2008 12:32 PM
I think we've reached an important milestone on our journey to becomming a fully diverse, multicultural society: We're no longer just importing potential Islamic terrorist', we're now exporting them.
Shouldn' this be cause for some kind of celebration?
Posted by: rational at February 27, 2008 12:33 PM
Look at the face. Look at what he did while in the United States, and what he has been doing since. How was he ever let into this country in the first place? Who gave him the visa, in what consulate, in what country? Who questioned him when he arrived? Who thought it made sense to let him, and tens of thousands of others like him, without examining carefully his undeclared mental baggage, or at least making an intelligent guess as to what that mental baggage must surely have contained?
Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2008 12:37 PM
Nice mugshot....
"There is good reason to believe Anwar Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States, including plotting attacks against America and our allies." But Aulaqi was American-born, indicating that the jihad problem, while it contains a very serious immigration component, is not solely an immigration matter.
It's not solely an immigration problem, but then again, were his parents not immigrants? He was born in the US, but it's still immigration that resulted in this cockroach being born American.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at February 27, 2008 12:49 PM
"After 9/11, Aulaqi publicly condemned the attacks. But in comments published in English on Sept. 17, 2001, on IslamOnline, Aulaqi suggested that Israelis may have been responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that the FBI "went into the roster of the airplanes and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default."
Weeks after leaving the United States in the spring of 2002, he posted an essay in Arabic titled "Why Muslims Love Death" on the Islam Today Web site, lauding the fervor of Palestinian suicide bombers. Months later he praised them in English at a lecture in a London mosque that was recorded on videotape."
-- from the article above
It would be instructive to find the published remarks of Aulaqi "after 0/11" when he "publicly condemned the attacks." Then compare his public condemnations with his attempt to assign blame to the Israelis, his attempt to attack the FBI for supposedly falsely accusing Muslims of the responsibility ("whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default"), and then, once he was safely out of this country, revealing his real defense of homicide-bombings and other acts of terrorism against Infidels different not in kind, but only in degree, from the 9/11/2001 attacks he supposedly "publicly condemned."
Indeed, someone should compile a list of all the Muslim clerics who said one thing, while in the United States, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11/2001 attacks, and what they were caught saying, on tape, both before those attacks, and after, when they thought no Infidels were listening in. Useful, and instructive, such a list would be.
Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2008 12:51 PM
Does anyone know if this rebrobate, Aulaqi, had at least one parent who was already an American citizen? If not, he functions as a good example of why the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution needs to be altered by an additional amendment to disallow someone from becoming an American citizen merely because that person was born on American soil. Along with banning Muslim immigration (using some other pretext if necessary until that time when Islam itself can be openly questioned without all kinds of PC consequences), this country should move to a constitutional requirement that no one is automatically born a citizen of the United States unless at least one of that person's parents is already a citizen. This will be difficult to achieve but it is a matter of self-preservation.
Posted by: Wellington at February 27, 2008 1:30 PM
Muslims like Anwar al-Aulaqi are not doing themselves any favor by telling so many lies, speaking one way vs. another, depending on who is listening.
In case they didn't know, Ah, us "Islamophobes" have noticed.
Posted by: Sounder at February 27, 2008 1:38 PM
No shock and awe here folks; Aulaqi’s perfidious ilk are a dime-a-dozen. If we do not want to go the way of the foundering UK or its EU counterparts, we, our government had better get its outhouse together.
Homegrown subversives; these jihadists are permitted to slither, freely about our society under the protection of “our” constitution, whilst hell-bent on undermining and then destroying, “our”, democracy.
Of course, we, as well, have the appeasers of the left, who, also, loath this nation’s democracy as much as their Islamist counterparts.
Homegrown traitors, whether Islamists or perfidious, wannabe, revolutionaries of the left, have one objective; this is to dismantle America and create it in there own image. They differ little from their Islamist counterparts.
The aforementioned, the wannabe revolutionaries, will be shocked and awed when or if their Islamic collaborators win the toss: they will be the first to encounter the sword of Islam.
This nation is on the brink of catastrophe if it is not vigilant of all its enemies within.
at February 27, 2008 3:02 PM
"American-born imam Anwar al-Aulaqi"
Where they're born and what citizenship they happen to hold must not be taken into consideration. A Moslem's loyalty is to Islam first. And what is Islam? The uninformed person must be directed to the koran and ahadith, etc. (with help from us) to be enlightened.
Must every Moslem be suspect? Yes. (I know there are the exceptions, blah, blah, blah. Then there are as Hugh calls 'em "Muslim-in-name- only." But how do you recognize these as being genuinely in-name-only or pretending to be so whilst harboring a much darker Islam in their heart of hearts?)
Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 27, 2008 4:26 PM
But Aulaqi was American-born, indicating that the jihad problem, while it contains a very serious immigration component, is not solely an immigration matter.
Why is that? Is he an "anchor baby"?
at February 27, 2008 4:37 PM
If your logic is applied then every single Muslim is a violent, animal, without a grain of civilisation in his/her body, which you will deny ever having said, but you just did and you say it all the time.
This article needs to be corrected because it is a massive understatement to suggest only 91 million Muslims are jihadists, because the real figure is more closer 1.3 billion. Do you know why that is? Because they spend every single day of their lives (not all of them) fighting against their inner desires, and the whisperings of Satan to avoid true worship. It is one of your finest achievements to convince people jihad means 'holy war.' It is a sign of ignorance that you cannot even apply the correct meaning to something even when you acknowledge its true meaning, you still deny it.
'Don't listen to him he's an apologist.'
How do you define 'the war on terror? What is it called? Your president said it was a 'crusade' didn't he?
Hypocrisy in the extreme. You apply the wrong meaning to something, giving Muslims no chance in the first place.
Then do the same thing, call it by a different name, to make it seem acceptable.
Anything can be distorted. I can say Hitler, was a Christian, even though he was, I cannot refer to him as a Christian who read the bible- particularly the books of Matthew and John - to justify his actions against the Jews. I wouldn't do it anyway. But the point is, he's not a Christian in your eyes. Had a Muslim done the same thing, in your eyes, he's not an evil man, or a tyrant, he's a Muslim, before all else.
This is because to you jihad means 'holy war.' It means Muslims should bomb themselves, it means they should target civilians and woman and children, it means they should attack without being aggressed, it also means, they should emigrate to all corners of the world, to cause problems for those people, replace their laws with Sharia, disrespect them and their way of life.
There is a peaceful solution to all this and thats just leave their countries. If Bin Laden was the cause of 9/11, you would have captured him and killed him by now, but you haven't because you want to continue saying there are terrorists there. If it's the case that you have no evidence linking him with 9/11, then leave the country, whats the point of you being there.
Iraq is just the same; weapons inspectors couldn't find any weapons or any link with Al-Qaeda so leave their country.
Till then, of course they are going to be angry that you have taken over their country. I'm not justifying the things they do or the things your soldiers do, but to end it, all you have to do is leave their countries and let them decide.
To the people that committed the London, Madrid bombings, I don't care what you say they are not Muslim, they are just the same criminals as Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Pinochet.
What have you got to attack a Muslim when I won't support the actions of a criminal who claims to be a Muslim, neither will I forget your hypocrisy, since the greed and lust for power of the West, is directly and indirectly involved in the suffering of people around the world?
at February 27, 2008 5:04 PM
There is good reason to believe Anwar Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States, including plotting attacks against America and our allie...
Perfect!
Just what we are looking for; let's offer him a high ranking position in the State Department or at the White House.
With his unique skill sets, America will be safer from extremists!
Posted by: witness at February 27, 2008 6:21 PM
*****Darcie***** "American-born imam Anwar al-Aulaqi"
Is this another Doug Hooper? What is his original name? Bob Smith?
That smug expression is quite nauseating.
He's American born in the sense that his mother was here when he was born(anchor baby). I believe he is of Yemeni descent. Regarless, I get the same feeling as you. Google or Youtube; Anwar Al Awlaki, or Al Alawki.
Posted by: SeifulKaffir at February 27, 2008 11:31 PM
!!!TROLL ALERT!!!
A certain thesaracen posted the very same verbiage on the preceding thread.
He is only Trolling and does not want to debate or contribute. Only misdirect accuse and lie. No feeding the TROLL.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 28, 2008 1:20 AM
Am I the only one who sees an uncanny resemblance between Anwar Aulaqi and Robert Spencer? Trim the beard, dress him in a suit and tie, add a few pounds, and voilà!
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!
Posted by: Lex at February 28, 2008 8:00 AM
The proof is in the pudding: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F9339E56-1F00-41B7-92A4-826DA2070FC1
Posted by: Lex at February 28, 2008 8:09 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)