Tag Archives: Omar Abdel-Rahman

Why We Need To Be Careful Who We Allow To Settle In America

Posted on by

Yesterday Andrew McCarthy posted an article at The National Review about the death of Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as the“Blind Sheikh.” The Blind Sheikh died in a federal prison Friday night. He was in prison for plotting the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Andrew McCarthy was the lawyer who prosecuted the case against him.

The Blind Sheikh was an active terrorist before he came to America. Unfortunately the people who allowed him to immigrate to America failed to notice that his name was on the terrorist watch list. He came to America from Egypt, where he issued the fatwa relied upon by the jihadists who murdered Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat at a military parade in 1981. He was acquitted when he was tried in Egypt for that murder, relying on a defense that he was merely carrying out Islamic Law–under Islamic Law, Sadat deserved to die because he had signed a peace treaty with Israel. This is what we are up against. The Blind Sheikh in America trained, encouraged, and planned various operations with jihadists. While living in America, he was part of a conspiracy to murder Hosni Mubarak during one of Mubarak’s visits to the U.N.

The article concludes:

Omar Abdel Rahman was physically incapable of doing anything that would be useful to a terrorist organization: He couldn’t build a bomb, hijack a plane, or carry out an assassination. The only thing he could do for a terrorist organization was lead it. His life is a testament to the centrality of sharia-supremacist ideology to modern jihadism and to the broader Islamist movement in which it thrives. His death reminds us why we must fight everything he represented.

Omar Abdel Rahman was in America legally. Before he was arrested and tried, he was actively planning jihad against Americans. His story is one reason we need to be very careful about who we invite to live in America.
Please follow the link above to read the entire article. There is a lot we need to learn from our experience with Mr. Rahman.

Something We Need To Remember

Posted on by

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at the National Review today that should cause us all to stop and think for a moment. In America, we hear a lot of things from the media, and as Americans we tend to accept what we have been told. However, some of what we have been told is patently ridiculous.

Mr. McCarthy poses the question, “Supposing that you are a moderate Muslim, is there any insulting thing I could say, no matter how provocative, or any demeaning video I could show you, no matter how lurid, that could convince you to join ISIS?”

He reminds us that he was the prosecutor of the“Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman after the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

After asking the question above, Mr. McCarthy points out that when the American media and American presidents refer to Islam as ‘a religion of peace,’ they are overlooking some very obvious points.

The article at National Review concludes with this comment on the trial of the World Trade Center bombers:

At trial, the jihadists tried to tell the jury they were just moderate, peace-loving Muslims who had been provoked by American foreign policy, a perception of anti-Muslim bias, and videos of Muslims being persecuted in Bosnia. The Blind Sheikh insisted his incitements to jihad were simply a case of faithfully applying sharia principles, which, according to his lawyers, the First Amendment gave him the right to do.

So I asked the jury a simple question: Is there any obnoxious, insulting, infuriating thing I could say to you, or show to you, that would convince you to join up with mass-murdering terrorists? To become a terrorist yourself? Of course, a dozen commonsense New Yorkers did not need to be asked such a question. They laughed the defense out of the courtroom.
Alas, in the 20 years since, the defense they laughed out of the courtroom has become the bipartisan government policy of the United States.

We have forgotten the lessons of history.

A Voice Of Wisdom Crying In The Darkness

Posted on by

According to the website AndrewCMcCarthy.com:

Andy is a former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York, best known for leading the prosecution against the Blind Sheik (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven other jihadists for waging a terrorist war against the United States – including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. After the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the U.S. attorney’s command-post near Ground Zero. He later served as an advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

A few years ago, I had the privilege of hearing Mr. McCarthy speak in Massachusetts. At that time he explained his approach to prosecuting the Blind Sheik. He explained that his staff began to look at the writings of Islamic scholars in an effort to provide that the Blind Sheik was acting outside of the tenets of Islam. Unfortunately, as the investigation of those tenets progressed, the evidence pointed to the fact that the Blind Sheik was actually following the tenets of Islam.

In a National Review Online article written today, Mr. McCarthy again explains how Islam is in agreement with the recent attack in Paris. He explains that the attack was not the result of extremism–it was in keeping with the basic tenets of Islam.

The article begins:

There are now at least twelve confirmed dead in the terrorist attack carried out by at least three jihadist gunmen against the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo. While it practices equal-opportunity satire, lampooning Islam has proved lethal for the magazine, just as it has for so many others who dare to exercise the bedrock Western liberty of free expression. Charlie Hebdo’s offices were firebombed in 2011 over a caricature of Mohammed that depicted him saying, “100 lashes if you don’t die from laughter.”

The cartoon was obviously referring to sharia, Islam’s legal code and totalitarian framework. Don’t take my word for it. Just flip through Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, the authoritative sharia manual. You will find a number of offenses for which flagellation is the prescribed penalty.

The article explains that Reliance of the Traveller is a renowned explication of sharia’s provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture.

The article states:

In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements, including one from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think tank begun in the early Eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”). Perhaps more significantly, there is also an endorsement from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West.

In their endorsement, the al-Azhar scholars wrote:

We certify that the . . . translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community. . . . There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. . . . May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.

There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.

Reliance of the Traveller is the definitive interpretation of Islamic scripture. So what does Reliance of the Traveller say about the kind of attack that occurred in Paris?

The article quotes Reliance of the Traveller:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

Please follow the link to the article at National Review Online to see what other teachings are part of basic Islamic law. According to the laws of Islam, terrorism is not extreme–it is a basic tenet of Islam.

The terrorists were doing exactly what Reliance of the Traveller told them to do to punish apostasy. Whether the western world chooses to believe that or not, it is a fact. We had better accept that fact quickly or we will either lose the right to free speech or deal with similar attacks in the near future. The choice is ours.

 

Bad News From Algeria

Posted on by

The Associated Press is reporting tonight that hostage crisis at the natural gas complex in Algeria has ended with the deaths of all 32 of the the terrorists involved, and unfortunately the deaths of at least 23 hostages. Algeria has a history of dealing with terrorists with military action rather than negotiations.

The article reports:

Immediately after the assault, French President Francois Hollande gave his backing to Algeria’s tough tactics, saying they were “the most adapted response to the crisis.”

“There could be no negotiations” with terrorists, the French media quoted him as saying in the central French city of Tulle.

Hollande said the hostages were “shamefully murdered” by their captors, and he linked the event to France’s military operation against al-Qaida-backed rebels in neighboring Mali. “If there was any need to justify our action against terrorism, we would have here, again, an additional argument,” he said.

There are a few things to remember here. One is that kidnapping and hostage taking is one way the terrorists raise money for their activities. If you follow the link above and read the entire article, you will realize that the terrorists had no qualms about killing any westerner they happened to take prisoner. Another thing to remember is that President Morsi of Egypt (and the Muslim Brotherhood) is pressuring the United States to release the blind sheik.

It was reported in the New York Post today that:

Trapped terrorists made a bizarre offer to end the 3-day-old Sahara showdown: We’ll trade the blind sheik for US hostages.

The lives of two Americans seized in a brazen attack on a remote Algerian gas plant would be spared in return for the release from federal prisons of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and a fellow terrorist.

Terrorism needs to become unprofitable and socially unacceptable. Unfortunately that will not happen until the civilized world unites against it. The United Nations is useless in combating terrorism because the Islamic states have formed a voting bloc that prevents the United Nations from acting (also because of the anti-Semitism that seems to have found its way into the United Nations).

As much as I regret the loss of innocent lives, I think the Algerian military handled the situation well. To me, the best example of a successful hostage rescue is the Israeli Defense Forces raid on Entebbe on July 4, 1976. The Israelis did their homework–they knew the layout of the airport and they managed to rescue the hostages with a minimum number of casualties. That example needs to be studied. I understand that there were certain aspects of that raid that could not be duplicated, but we need to learn from our successes.

My condolences to the families of those lost this weekend.

Enhanced by Zemanta

More Under The Radar

Posted on by

The New York Post is reporting today that the Obama Administration is in negotiations with the new government of Egypt to release the blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman to Egypt as a gift to the new government of Egypt. The Obama Administration denies that this is the case, but the story can be found on at least two reliable internet sources that I am aware of. As I am sure you remember, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman was responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

The New York Post reports:

His incarceration was the subject of Arabic-language message-board rants two days before protesters stormed the US Embassy in Cairo and later killed the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, according to a Department of Homeland Security report obtained by Fox News.

They wrote he should be released, “even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.”

King and other congressional Republicans sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying, “The release of Abdel-Rahman or any terrorist who plots to kill innocent Americans would be seen for what it is: a sign of weakness and a lack of resolve by the United States and its president.”

I will bet anyone a steak dinner that sometime after the election, when the Obama Administration thinks no one is looking, the Blind Sheik will be sent back to Egypt. It may be framed as a compassionate move, as the Sheik is elderly, but he will be sent back to Egypt.

Please consider this when you vote in November.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Really Won’t Help Me Sleep Nights

Posted on by

I have posted articles by Reza Kahlili before.

The Daily Caller describes him as follows:

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award winning book, A Time to Betray. He is a senior Fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

His latest article at the Daily Caller should wake up all Americans (including Congress) to the dangers around us: 

A source who served in the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence unit and has now defected to a European country warned in April that the Islamic regime’s terror cells were on high alert, which includes for attacks in the U.S.

According to that source, and another located in the U.S., the regime’s assets have long infiltrated America and are coordinating operations out of mosques and Islamic centers, such as Imam Ali Mosques and the Iman Islamic Center.

Please read the entire article at the Daily Caller. I also recommend reading an article posted by Andrew McCarthy at PJ Media today talking about the willful blindness of our Congress in regard to the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. He tells his story regarding his research into the Muslim Brotherhood and its influence on American politics beginning with his prosecution of Omar Abdel-Rahman (the Blind Sheik) in 1996.

Mr. McCarthy is questioning whether it is time for conservatives who care about national security to abandon the Republican party.

He concludes:

At a time not long ago, before the hard Left took over the Democratic Party, there was a style of strong national-security Democrat (in the mold of Scoop Jackson or even Jack Kennedy) who would have seen the position to which the Obama administration and the Republican establishment adhere as dangerously delusional. Unfortunately, there are no longer enough of those Democrats in government to appeal to.

On the other hand, there remain many national security conservatives in the Republican Party. They are alarmed and extremely worried about the threat the ascendancy of Islamic supremacism poses to our liberty and security. They also see this threat magnified, to an intolerable degree, by the inroads the Muslim Brotherhood has made in the Republican establishment and in our government. As to the latter, we are not just talking about the State Department — not by a long shot. So profound is the influence of the Obama/Republican-establishment philosophy over the Defense Department, for example, that the Pentagon could not bring itself to refer to any aspect of Islamic supremacist ideology in a lengthy report on the attack at Fort Hood — a jihadist atrocity that killed 13 Americans, twice as many as were killed in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

If the Republican Party has decided to take its cues from establishment proponents of this reckless philosophy, if GOP leaders can no longer tell the difference between hostile anti-American operatives and benign political actors, then the Republican Party has become an obstacle to liberty and security, not a vehicle for their preservation. As is the case with crushing government debt and out-of-control government spending, it appears that the GOP is choosing to be part of the problem, rather than the solution, when it comes to the threat of Islamic supremacism. Certainly, that is a choice party leaders are entitled to make. But if it is the one they have made, why should conservatives concerned about liberty and security bother with the Republican Party?

This is a time to be aware of the connections of our government officials. Michele Bachmann has asked for an investigation into some of those officials. This is not a witch hunt–this is a necessary endeavor.