From Congresswoman Sue Myrick
FBI Cuts Ties With Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
In April 2008, Rep. Myrick released her Wake Up America Agenda. One of ten points in this plan called for an investigation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Less than a year later, the FBI has cut all ties with CAIR. The organization is listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in an FBI case involving Hamas fundraisers. Hamas is identified as a terrorist organization by the United States.
Click here for a news clip on the FBI's actions.
We just wanted you to know that our relentless pursuit of those who wish to bring harm to America is paying off.
Showing posts with label domestic terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label domestic terrorism. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Monday, December 1, 2008
Why we must pay attention to the Mumbai Terrorist Attacks
Why We Must Pay Attention to the Mumbai Terrorist Attacks
By Sean Osborne, Associate Director
27 November 2008:
The Al Qaeda-inspired terrorist attacks in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) India may well be a bellwether for Western counter-terrorist operations, particularly in the United States. Given the 25 November FBI/DHS advisory regarding “a plausible but unsubstantiated report” on “discussions” within Al-Qa’ida communications channels, all things must be considered relevant in order to counter the threat of Islamic jihadist strikes in America.
There is no doubt that Al Qa’ida discussions half a world away in Mumbai evolved beyond the “aspirational planning.” I think it necessary at this point to reiterate that one of the primary forms of “aspirational planning” discussions among Al Qa’ida jihadists are found on the forums resident with internet websites. As Randy Taylor reported 18 days ago, an Al Qa’ida “aspirational planning” document was posted on one of their primary forums. Item number 9 in the 15-item “aspirational planning” list of desired targets is the subject of the current FBI/DHS advisory.
Based upon analysis of this communication, as well as other more recent communications, the Northeast Intelligence Network most certainly may be in possession of further information, as have you and every other entity which read Mr. Taylor’s report. This kind of information is known within the United States Intelligence Community (US IC) as Indications & Warnings (I&W). Moreover, the list in the communication we collected goes far beyond strikes in the manner of the London or Madrid suicide bombers on the transportation sector in the northeastern United States and Canada. This communication discussed strikes against nine different nuclear power stations located across the entire northeast region and the entire electrical grid. In multiple and overwhelming instances it references strikes against the financial infrastructure of the United States based in New York City. It discusses what can only be mass tactical assaults on seven passenger laden commercial airports. It discussed the financial impact upon the United States during a time of financial crisis as well as the minimal cost to the Islamic jihadists in executing the strikes, and that they will occur at some particular point in time without warning.
Let’s shift our focus to Mumbai. How do these multiple attacks in India compare to what I’ve just discussed? They are well-coordinated mass attacks across a single major Indian city. But more importantly I think it should be obvious that the tactical execution of these attacks evidences a significant departure from the previous template of broad-daylight terrorist strikes. These Indian jihadists utilized darkness as tactical cover for the execution of a major, multi-faceted terrorist operation by launching the entire operation at 10 PM local time in Mumbai.
This evident change in tactics begs some analytical questions. Was this change in tactics based upon an Al Qa’ida leadership operational directive, or was it left to the local cell leadership to determine? Is this what occurred in the attacks against the World Trade Center in New York City in February 1993 and again in September 2001? It would appear so – the local commander determined the timing of attack, Al Qa’ida’s central command merely approved the concept and targets of the strike, and was generally aware in advance that the strikes would occur. Al Qa’ida central was briefed on the plan of attack, it did not originate them.
All of this has brought about a change in my thinking about the execution of terrorist attacks. Al-Qaeda is a decentralized terrorist entity. It was years ago at the urging of Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (Abu Mus'ab al-Suri), the Al Qa’ida master tactician, theoretician and composer of the Al Qa’ida warfighting doctrine, who urged individual jihadists and cells worldwide to execute independent jihad operations on its behalf.
Since the Al Qaeda leadership places no constraints on the timing of attacks by its worldwide cells, there exists the distinct possibility that the leader of a given terrorist cell could choose an Islamic or Infidel date of significance or anniversary upon which to execute a strike. In this respect the "setting of dates" by individual jihadi posters on their forums cannot be completely ignored or discounted. Just because this "setting of dates" has not been the case in the past does not mean it won't be the case in the present or in the future. In fact, Islamic jihadists have repeatedly struck Israeli civilian targets on Hebrew dates of significance or holidays on many occasions over many years. The point here is that one additional and very recent jihadi forum post cites a specific date during the first week of January 2009 in which a “settling of accounts” with President George W. Bush will occur. We’ll see what actually transpires relative to these near-term threats, yet I believe it is prudent for all concerned to learn from past events as well as the recent.
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/node/1493
Sean Osborne
Associate Director
Northeast Intelligence Network
By Sean Osborne, Associate Director
27 November 2008:
The Al Qaeda-inspired terrorist attacks in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) India may well be a bellwether for Western counter-terrorist operations, particularly in the United States. Given the 25 November FBI/DHS advisory regarding “a plausible but unsubstantiated report” on “discussions” within Al-Qa’ida communications channels, all things must be considered relevant in order to counter the threat of Islamic jihadist strikes in America.
There is no doubt that Al Qa’ida discussions half a world away in Mumbai evolved beyond the “aspirational planning.” I think it necessary at this point to reiterate that one of the primary forms of “aspirational planning” discussions among Al Qa’ida jihadists are found on the forums resident with internet websites. As Randy Taylor reported 18 days ago, an Al Qa’ida “aspirational planning” document was posted on one of their primary forums. Item number 9 in the 15-item “aspirational planning” list of desired targets is the subject of the current FBI/DHS advisory.
Based upon analysis of this communication, as well as other more recent communications, the Northeast Intelligence Network most certainly may be in possession of further information, as have you and every other entity which read Mr. Taylor’s report. This kind of information is known within the United States Intelligence Community (US IC) as Indications & Warnings (I&W). Moreover, the list in the communication we collected goes far beyond strikes in the manner of the London or Madrid suicide bombers on the transportation sector in the northeastern United States and Canada. This communication discussed strikes against nine different nuclear power stations located across the entire northeast region and the entire electrical grid. In multiple and overwhelming instances it references strikes against the financial infrastructure of the United States based in New York City. It discusses what can only be mass tactical assaults on seven passenger laden commercial airports. It discussed the financial impact upon the United States during a time of financial crisis as well as the minimal cost to the Islamic jihadists in executing the strikes, and that they will occur at some particular point in time without warning.
Let’s shift our focus to Mumbai. How do these multiple attacks in India compare to what I’ve just discussed? They are well-coordinated mass attacks across a single major Indian city. But more importantly I think it should be obvious that the tactical execution of these attacks evidences a significant departure from the previous template of broad-daylight terrorist strikes. These Indian jihadists utilized darkness as tactical cover for the execution of a major, multi-faceted terrorist operation by launching the entire operation at 10 PM local time in Mumbai.
This evident change in tactics begs some analytical questions. Was this change in tactics based upon an Al Qa’ida leadership operational directive, or was it left to the local cell leadership to determine? Is this what occurred in the attacks against the World Trade Center in New York City in February 1993 and again in September 2001? It would appear so – the local commander determined the timing of attack, Al Qa’ida’s central command merely approved the concept and targets of the strike, and was generally aware in advance that the strikes would occur. Al Qa’ida central was briefed on the plan of attack, it did not originate them.
All of this has brought about a change in my thinking about the execution of terrorist attacks. Al-Qaeda is a decentralized terrorist entity. It was years ago at the urging of Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (Abu Mus'ab al-Suri), the Al Qa’ida master tactician, theoretician and composer of the Al Qa’ida warfighting doctrine, who urged individual jihadists and cells worldwide to execute independent jihad operations on its behalf.
Since the Al Qaeda leadership places no constraints on the timing of attacks by its worldwide cells, there exists the distinct possibility that the leader of a given terrorist cell could choose an Islamic or Infidel date of significance or anniversary upon which to execute a strike. In this respect the "setting of dates" by individual jihadi posters on their forums cannot be completely ignored or discounted. Just because this "setting of dates" has not been the case in the past does not mean it won't be the case in the present or in the future. In fact, Islamic jihadists have repeatedly struck Israeli civilian targets on Hebrew dates of significance or holidays on many occasions over many years. The point here is that one additional and very recent jihadi forum post cites a specific date during the first week of January 2009 in which a “settling of accounts” with President George W. Bush will occur. We’ll see what actually transpires relative to these near-term threats, yet I believe it is prudent for all concerned to learn from past events as well as the recent.
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/node/1493
Sean Osborne
Associate Director
Northeast Intelligence Network
Monday, November 24, 2008
Holy Land Foundation defendants guilty on all counts
OMG! OMG! Where's my minature violin? Crying because they got caught! Isn't your heart just breaking for them? They were only doing what their "religion" DEMANDS of them! OH! You government fear mongers. Guilty of 108 counts and still claiming innocence!
Holy Land Foundation defendants guilty on all counts
Dallas Morning News
jtrahan@dallasnews.com; teiserer@dallasnews.com
A jury on Monday determined that the Holy Land Foundation and five men who worked with the Muslim charity were guilty of three dozen counts related to the illegal funneling of at least $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
The unanimous verdicts are a complete victory for the government, which streamlined its case after a mistrial last year, and worked hard to carefully educate jurors on the complex evidence presented in the massive case. Guilty verdicts were read on 108 separate charges.
Zolfa Elaydi (center) is comforted by her son, Jihad Elaydi, as she and her daughter, Fidaa Elaydi, weep outside the Earle Cabell Federal Building on Monday in reaction to the guilty verdicts in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case.
The prosecution victory is also a major one for the administration of President George Bush, whose efforts at fighting terrorism financing in court have been troubled, even though the flow of funds seems to be effectively shut down.
“Today’s verdicts are important milestones in America’s efforts against financiers of terrorism,” Patrick Rowan, Assistant Attorney General for National Security said in a prepared statement.
“This prosecution demonstrates our resolve to ensure that humanitarian relief efforts are not used as a mechanism to disguise and enable support for terrorist groups,” he said.
Robert Hirschhorn, a nationally known jury consultant based in Lewisville, said “The jury has handed the government a huge victory and a loud and clear message has been sent — if any group funnels money to a terrorist organization, the government will hunt you down and turn off the money spigot.”
Later Monday, the jury determined that Holy Land should forfeit $12.4 million in defendants’ assets because of several convictions on money laundering charges related to the case.
It was the second trial where the government attempted to convict the men and the now defunct Richardson-based Holy Land Foundation itself. It took the jury eight days of deliberations to reach its decisions — less than half the time it took jurors to end up with an almost complete mistrial last year on the first go-around.
“It’s a sad day,” said Mohammed Wafa Yaish, Holy Land’s former accountant and himself a witness of the trial. “It looks like helping the needy Palestinians is a crime these days.”
Before he read the verdict, the judge had ordered all observers to remain civil and respect the proceedings.
“My dad is not a criminal!” sobbed one courtroom observer after the verdicts were read. “He’s a human!”
In the trial’s second, overflow courtroom, reaction to the verdicts was subdued. Family and friends left quietly. Several said they didn’t want to talk.
One supporter of the defendants who identified himself as Adel said, “It’s politicized. I don’t think there is justice. I know these guys. I think everything is lies.”
John Wolf, a friend and member of the Hungry for Justice coalition, said he’d known the defendants for 12 years.
“I’m not surprised,” he said of the verdicts. “I think the government had their do-over and they learned from their mistakes. It’s hard to accept because I don’t believe the gentlemen are guilty. These guys are the sweetest, clean-hearted people.”
Opening statements at the Earle Cabell Federal Building in downtown Dallas began Sept. 22. Over the past two months, prosecutors attempted to prove that five former charity organizers used Holy Land, once the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., to funnel an estimated $60 million to the militant group — most of it before 1995.
Hamas was designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. in 1995, and the trial centered on the $12 million the government said Holy Land and supporters funneled to the group after that date.
Defense attorneys argued that the foundation was a legitimate, non-political charity that helped distressed Palestinians under Israeli occupation. They accused the government of bending to Israeli pressure to prosecute the charity, and of relying on old evidence predating the 1995 designation.
Holy Land was formed in the late 1980s, and was shut down by U.S. government regulators in December 2001. The case was indicted in 2004.
Last year’s trial of the same five defendants ended in a hung jury Oct. 22, 2007. Jurors deliberated for 19 days before they deadlocked. Supporters on both side of the aisle were prepared to claim a victory, at least in the moral sense.
“The government showed in a streamlined case that where special assistance to the families of terrorists is concerned, cash is the moral equivalent of a car bomb,” said Peter Margulies, Roger Williams University law professor who studies terrorism financing cases.
“Going forward, however, the government must be more pro-active about furnishing guidance to Muslim-Americans who merely wish to fulfill their religious obligations,” he said.
Douglas Farah, a former Washington Post foreign correspondent who is now an author and terrorism consultant, said that the “trial provides an invaluable forum for publicly showing the true agenda of the international Muslim Brotherhood and its organizations in the United States — the abolition of the United States government as we know it and support for a designated terrorist organization.”
“Given this complete victory for the government … it is now incumbent on U.S. government agencies to stop dealing with them as if they were engaging in benign efforts to push an agenda of tolerance and civil rights.”
The Justice Department is likely to claim victory not only with the verdicts, but by trumpeting the shutdown of what prosecutors say was a robust and unsettling American network of terrorist funding.
Holy Land, regardless of the verdict, is defunct. And other international terrorism financing pipelines have been interrupted.
But critics of the government case argued that even convictions would carry an asterisk noting that it took untold millions of taxpayer dollars, 15 years of investigation and two long, high-profile trials to finally convince a jury of the defendants’ guilt.
“I think this case proves that, with enough effort, the federal government can convict nearly anyone,” said Tom Melsheimer, a former federal prosecutor in Dallas now in private practice.“Retrials tend to favor the prosecution, in my view, because the government can figure out what worked and what didn’t and streamline their presentation of the evidence. The defense, on the other hand, has already shown their cards and the government can be better prepared to respond.
“I fear that these convictions will convince the government of the justness of their overall cause but I view the convictions as compelling the opposite conclusion,” he said. “To spend millions of dollars in time and expenses to prosecute people who were of no real threat to anyone, under the banner of a terrorism case, is a waste of precious federal resources.
William Moffitt, a Virginia defense attorney who represented two former university professors, Abdelhaleem Ashqar and Sami Al-Arian, said before the Holy Land verdicts that he suspects the convicted defendants will be hailed as heroes by some.
“I suspect that they will be viewed much the same way that Mandela was viewed by the black South African population — as freedom fighters who have dedicated their lives to the liberation of Palestine,” he said. Mr. Ashqar and Mr. Al-Arian were acquitted in trials in Chicago and Florida on similar charges that they steered support to Palestinian terrorists.
Mr. Ashqar was sentenced to 11 years in prison last year for refusing to testify for a grand jury about his Hamas ties. Dr. Al-Arian pleaded guilty in 2006 to a charge of supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad and is being held on contempt charges for refusing to co-operate in another terrorism support investigation. But both are viewed as folk heroes by some in the Muslim community.
Mr. Moffitt said Holy Land and the other cases are “show trials” where the government attempted to use “events that happened over 10 years ago” as evidence of crimes well before statutes specifically outlawing terrorism support were enacted.
“I think that the purpose of these trials was to further, in the minds of the public, the so-called ‘war on terrorism,’” he said. “There are legitimate terrorist organizations out there. But we’ve tried to make every group that doesn’t agree with us like al-Qaeda.”
Mr. Yaish, the Holy Land accountant, said Monday that he was angry that the prosecution brought up the Taliban and al Qaeda during the trial. He called that a fear tactic.
“What does giving charity to the Palestinians in the refugee camps have to do with this?”
“They scared the jurors,” he said. “Fear is the No. 1 government tactic.”
Holy Land Foundation defendants guilty on all counts
Dallas Morning News
jtrahan@dallasnews.com; teiserer@dallasnews.com
A jury on Monday determined that the Holy Land Foundation and five men who worked with the Muslim charity were guilty of three dozen counts related to the illegal funneling of at least $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
The unanimous verdicts are a complete victory for the government, which streamlined its case after a mistrial last year, and worked hard to carefully educate jurors on the complex evidence presented in the massive case. Guilty verdicts were read on 108 separate charges.
Zolfa Elaydi (center) is comforted by her son, Jihad Elaydi, as she and her daughter, Fidaa Elaydi, weep outside the Earle Cabell Federal Building on Monday in reaction to the guilty verdicts in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case.
The prosecution victory is also a major one for the administration of President George Bush, whose efforts at fighting terrorism financing in court have been troubled, even though the flow of funds seems to be effectively shut down.
“Today’s verdicts are important milestones in America’s efforts against financiers of terrorism,” Patrick Rowan, Assistant Attorney General for National Security said in a prepared statement.
“This prosecution demonstrates our resolve to ensure that humanitarian relief efforts are not used as a mechanism to disguise and enable support for terrorist groups,” he said.
Robert Hirschhorn, a nationally known jury consultant based in Lewisville, said “The jury has handed the government a huge victory and a loud and clear message has been sent — if any group funnels money to a terrorist organization, the government will hunt you down and turn off the money spigot.”
Later Monday, the jury determined that Holy Land should forfeit $12.4 million in defendants’ assets because of several convictions on money laundering charges related to the case.
It was the second trial where the government attempted to convict the men and the now defunct Richardson-based Holy Land Foundation itself. It took the jury eight days of deliberations to reach its decisions — less than half the time it took jurors to end up with an almost complete mistrial last year on the first go-around.
“It’s a sad day,” said Mohammed Wafa Yaish, Holy Land’s former accountant and himself a witness of the trial. “It looks like helping the needy Palestinians is a crime these days.”
Before he read the verdict, the judge had ordered all observers to remain civil and respect the proceedings.
“My dad is not a criminal!” sobbed one courtroom observer after the verdicts were read. “He’s a human!”
In the trial’s second, overflow courtroom, reaction to the verdicts was subdued. Family and friends left quietly. Several said they didn’t want to talk.
One supporter of the defendants who identified himself as Adel said, “It’s politicized. I don’t think there is justice. I know these guys. I think everything is lies.”
John Wolf, a friend and member of the Hungry for Justice coalition, said he’d known the defendants for 12 years.
“I’m not surprised,” he said of the verdicts. “I think the government had their do-over and they learned from their mistakes. It’s hard to accept because I don’t believe the gentlemen are guilty. These guys are the sweetest, clean-hearted people.”
Opening statements at the Earle Cabell Federal Building in downtown Dallas began Sept. 22. Over the past two months, prosecutors attempted to prove that five former charity organizers used Holy Land, once the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., to funnel an estimated $60 million to the militant group — most of it before 1995.
Hamas was designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. in 1995, and the trial centered on the $12 million the government said Holy Land and supporters funneled to the group after that date.
Defense attorneys argued that the foundation was a legitimate, non-political charity that helped distressed Palestinians under Israeli occupation. They accused the government of bending to Israeli pressure to prosecute the charity, and of relying on old evidence predating the 1995 designation.
Holy Land was formed in the late 1980s, and was shut down by U.S. government regulators in December 2001. The case was indicted in 2004.
Last year’s trial of the same five defendants ended in a hung jury Oct. 22, 2007. Jurors deliberated for 19 days before they deadlocked. Supporters on both side of the aisle were prepared to claim a victory, at least in the moral sense.
“The government showed in a streamlined case that where special assistance to the families of terrorists is concerned, cash is the moral equivalent of a car bomb,” said Peter Margulies, Roger Williams University law professor who studies terrorism financing cases.
“Going forward, however, the government must be more pro-active about furnishing guidance to Muslim-Americans who merely wish to fulfill their religious obligations,” he said.
Douglas Farah, a former Washington Post foreign correspondent who is now an author and terrorism consultant, said that the “trial provides an invaluable forum for publicly showing the true agenda of the international Muslim Brotherhood and its organizations in the United States — the abolition of the United States government as we know it and support for a designated terrorist organization.”
“Given this complete victory for the government … it is now incumbent on U.S. government agencies to stop dealing with them as if they were engaging in benign efforts to push an agenda of tolerance and civil rights.”
The Justice Department is likely to claim victory not only with the verdicts, but by trumpeting the shutdown of what prosecutors say was a robust and unsettling American network of terrorist funding.
Holy Land, regardless of the verdict, is defunct. And other international terrorism financing pipelines have been interrupted.
But critics of the government case argued that even convictions would carry an asterisk noting that it took untold millions of taxpayer dollars, 15 years of investigation and two long, high-profile trials to finally convince a jury of the defendants’ guilt.
“I think this case proves that, with enough effort, the federal government can convict nearly anyone,” said Tom Melsheimer, a former federal prosecutor in Dallas now in private practice.“Retrials tend to favor the prosecution, in my view, because the government can figure out what worked and what didn’t and streamline their presentation of the evidence. The defense, on the other hand, has already shown their cards and the government can be better prepared to respond.
“I fear that these convictions will convince the government of the justness of their overall cause but I view the convictions as compelling the opposite conclusion,” he said. “To spend millions of dollars in time and expenses to prosecute people who were of no real threat to anyone, under the banner of a terrorism case, is a waste of precious federal resources.
William Moffitt, a Virginia defense attorney who represented two former university professors, Abdelhaleem Ashqar and Sami Al-Arian, said before the Holy Land verdicts that he suspects the convicted defendants will be hailed as heroes by some.
“I suspect that they will be viewed much the same way that Mandela was viewed by the black South African population — as freedom fighters who have dedicated their lives to the liberation of Palestine,” he said. Mr. Ashqar and Mr. Al-Arian were acquitted in trials in Chicago and Florida on similar charges that they steered support to Palestinian terrorists.
Mr. Ashqar was sentenced to 11 years in prison last year for refusing to testify for a grand jury about his Hamas ties. Dr. Al-Arian pleaded guilty in 2006 to a charge of supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad and is being held on contempt charges for refusing to co-operate in another terrorism support investigation. But both are viewed as folk heroes by some in the Muslim community.
Mr. Moffitt said Holy Land and the other cases are “show trials” where the government attempted to use “events that happened over 10 years ago” as evidence of crimes well before statutes specifically outlawing terrorism support were enacted.
“I think that the purpose of these trials was to further, in the minds of the public, the so-called ‘war on terrorism,’” he said. “There are legitimate terrorist organizations out there. But we’ve tried to make every group that doesn’t agree with us like al-Qaeda.”
Mr. Yaish, the Holy Land accountant, said Monday that he was angry that the prosecution brought up the Taliban and al Qaeda during the trial. He called that a fear tactic.
“What does giving charity to the Palestinians in the refugee camps have to do with this?”
“They scared the jurors,” he said. “Fear is the No. 1 government tactic.”
Friday, October 24, 2008
McCain and Obama: Their Stand on Islamic Jihad and Terrorism
FROM ACT FOR AMERICA
The research we did on the positions of John McCain and Barack Obama regarding the causes of Islamic terrorism and how we should deal with alleged terrorists uncovered significant differences between the two candidates. These differences have either been ignored by most in the media or have been lost in the understandable wall-to-wall coverage of the economic calamity facing us.
For this reason we want to make sure that every ACT! for America member has had a chance to read and forward this research to everyone you know. What you will find below is posted on the ACT! for America voter guide section of our website, which you can access by clicking here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Views and Positions of John McCain and Barack Obama
http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/voter-guide/350
Both the John McCain and Barack Obama campaigns refused to respond to the ACT! for America candidate questionnaire. In lieu of that, ACT! for America has conducted extensive research that has enabled us to determine the views and positions of both candidates on the broad issue of “terrorism.”
The ACT! for America research on the broad issue of terrorism focused on the two candidates’ positions on the causes of terrorism and how to define the threat. This is very important because how one views and defines the threat is fundamental to how one will handle and respond to the threat. The ACT! for America research uncovered some striking differences between Senator Obama and Senator McCain on this.
The research for each candidate is comprised of quotes sourced from various published reports and ACT! for America comments.
John McCain
New York Post column 9/11/2008
“The divide starts with the question: Why was America attacked?
McCain's answer is simple (or, as Obama might suggest, simplistic): The United States was attacked because a resurgent Islam has produced a radicalism that dreams of world conquest and sees America as the enemy. [Emphasis added]
McCain doesn't hesitate to acknowledge that his country is engaged in a Global War on Terror. He doesn't believe that 9/11 might've been prompted by some wrong America did to others. To him, the nation was an innocent victim of "Islamic terrorism."
McCain asserts, "America faces a dedicated, focused and intelligent foe in the War on Terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities."
ACT! for America Comment
While John McCain has at times expressed his concern for America’s national image due to allegations of torture of suspected terrorist detainees, the column above is consistent with McCain’s stated position on the root cause of terrorism. For instance, McCain labels the principal terrorist threat to the world as “radical Islamic terrorism.” See the following article.
Washington Times, April 21, 2008
“A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.
Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy.
"We've tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Mr. Fareed said. "If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are."
An aide to Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who is counting on his pro-Iraq war stance to attract conservative voters, said the senator from Arizona will not drop the word.
Steve Schmidt, a former Bush White House aide who is now a McCain media strategist, told The Times that the use of the word is appropriate and that the candidate will continue to define the enemy that way…
… Mr. McCain, an ex-Navy fighter pilot and leading hawk on the Iraq war, regularly uses the term "Islamic" in major foreign-policy speeches and in news conferences.
In a speech last month to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, Mr. McCain said the formation of an international coalition "will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism." [Emphasis added]
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE
The research we did on the positions of John McCain and Barack Obama regarding the causes of Islamic terrorism and how we should deal with alleged terrorists uncovered significant differences between the two candidates. These differences have either been ignored by most in the media or have been lost in the understandable wall-to-wall coverage of the economic calamity facing us.
For this reason we want to make sure that every ACT! for America member has had a chance to read and forward this research to everyone you know. What you will find below is posted on the ACT! for America voter guide section of our website, which you can access by clicking here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Views and Positions of John McCain and Barack Obama
http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/voter-guide/350
Both the John McCain and Barack Obama campaigns refused to respond to the ACT! for America candidate questionnaire. In lieu of that, ACT! for America has conducted extensive research that has enabled us to determine the views and positions of both candidates on the broad issue of “terrorism.”
The ACT! for America research on the broad issue of terrorism focused on the two candidates’ positions on the causes of terrorism and how to define the threat. This is very important because how one views and defines the threat is fundamental to how one will handle and respond to the threat. The ACT! for America research uncovered some striking differences between Senator Obama and Senator McCain on this.
The research for each candidate is comprised of quotes sourced from various published reports and ACT! for America comments.
John McCain
New York Post column 9/11/2008
“The divide starts with the question: Why was America attacked?
McCain's answer is simple (or, as Obama might suggest, simplistic): The United States was attacked because a resurgent Islam has produced a radicalism that dreams of world conquest and sees America as the enemy. [Emphasis added]
McCain doesn't hesitate to acknowledge that his country is engaged in a Global War on Terror. He doesn't believe that 9/11 might've been prompted by some wrong America did to others. To him, the nation was an innocent victim of "Islamic terrorism."
McCain asserts, "America faces a dedicated, focused and intelligent foe in the War on Terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities."
ACT! for America Comment
While John McCain has at times expressed his concern for America’s national image due to allegations of torture of suspected terrorist detainees, the column above is consistent with McCain’s stated position on the root cause of terrorism. For instance, McCain labels the principal terrorist threat to the world as “radical Islamic terrorism.” See the following article.
Washington Times, April 21, 2008
“A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.
Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy.
"We've tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Mr. Fareed said. "If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are."
An aide to Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who is counting on his pro-Iraq war stance to attract conservative voters, said the senator from Arizona will not drop the word.
Steve Schmidt, a former Bush White House aide who is now a McCain media strategist, told The Times that the use of the word is appropriate and that the candidate will continue to define the enemy that way…
… Mr. McCain, an ex-Navy fighter pilot and leading hawk on the Iraq war, regularly uses the term "Islamic" in major foreign-policy speeches and in news conferences.
In a speech last month to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, Mr. McCain said the formation of an international coalition "will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism." [Emphasis added]
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE
Monday, August 25, 2008
Obama's domestic terrorist ties
American Issues Project Launches Ad
August 21, 2008
The American Issues Project today announced the debut of a new television advertising campaign examining the relationship between Sen. Barack Obama and unrepentant 1960's domestic terrorist, William Ayers. The ad -- entitled "Know Enough?" -- begins with a simple, yet pointed question: "Beyond the speeches, how much do you really know about Barack Obama?"
Supported by over one hundred pages of back-up documentation and historical accounts, the American Issues Project is using this ad to shed light on Obama's friendship with Ayers, the former leader of an American terrorist group known as Weather Underground.
American Issues Project Click Here
August 21, 2008
The American Issues Project today announced the debut of a new television advertising campaign examining the relationship between Sen. Barack Obama and unrepentant 1960's domestic terrorist, William Ayers. The ad -- entitled "Know Enough?" -- begins with a simple, yet pointed question: "Beyond the speeches, how much do you really know about Barack Obama?"
Supported by over one hundred pages of back-up documentation and historical accounts, the American Issues Project is using this ad to shed light on Obama's friendship with Ayers, the former leader of an American terrorist group known as Weather Underground.
American Issues Project Click Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
