Warning: Holy Month of Ramadan Trains Muslims to do What?

Warning: Holy Month of Ramadan Trains Muslims

 to do What?

By Carl Goldberg

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan has begun. In addition to fasting from dawn to dusk, Muslims are obligated to read the entire Koran during this month. Non-Muslims should be aware of some of the things their Muslim neighbors will be reading in the Koran:

  • The unbelievers among the people of the book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. (98.6).
  • Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)
  • The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
  • Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
  • It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)
  • Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. (5:51)
  • Make war on them [non-Muslims] until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
  • Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
  • The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (4:76)
  • We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3:150)
  • I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers. (8:12)
  • When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (9:5)
  • Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, … until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. (9:29)
  • Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. (9:73 and 66:9)
  • Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. (9:123)
  • When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads. (47:4)
  • These and other passages in the Koran, which are considered Allah’s literal word, will be important to non-Muslims until the imams preach to their congregations that these passages are no longer valid. So far, it has not happened.

    Carl Goldberg writes from Tempe, Arizona


     

    The Coming Urban Terror

    Mark Steyn: The vanishing jihad exposés

    Mark Steyn: The vanishing jihad exposés

    Mark Steyn zeros in on the destruction of “Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World,” which was recently destroyed for fear of a law suit from Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz.

    How will we lose the war against “radical Islam”?

    Well, it won’t be in a tank battle. Or in the Sunni Triangle or the caves of Bora Bora. It won’t be because terrorists fly three jets into the Oval Office, Buckingham Palace and the Basilica of St Peter’s on the same Tuesday morning.
    The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who’s behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?

    [..] Who is ? Well, he’s a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.I’m not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it’s considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.

    In October 2001, the Treasury Department named Muwafaq as “an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen” and its chairman as a “specially designated global terrorist.” As the Treasury concluded, “Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief.”

    Indeed, this “charity” seems to have no other purpose than to fund jihad. It seeds Islamism wherever it operates. In Chechnya, it helped transform a reasonably conventional nationalist struggle into an outpost of the jihad. In the Balkans, it played a key role in replacing a traditionally moderate Islam with a form of Mitteleuropean Wahhabism. Pick a Muwafaq branch office almost anywhere on the planet and you get an interesting glimpse of the typical Saudi charity worker. The former head of its mission in Zagreb, Croatia, for example, is a guy called Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammad. Well, he’s called that most of the time. But he has at least four aliases and residences in at least three nations (Germany, Austria and Belgium). He was named as a bin Laden financier by the U.S. government and disappeared from the United Kingdom shortly after 9/11.

    So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?

    Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call “libel chill” is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He’s one of the richest men on the planet, and they’re an academic publisher with very small profit margins. But, even if you’ve got a bestseller, your pockets are unlikely to be deep enough: “House Of Saud, House Of Bush” did boffo biz with the anti-Bush crowd in America, but there’s no British edition – because Sheikh Mahfouz had indicated he was prepared to spend what it takes to challenge it in court, and Random House decided it wasn’t worth it.

    We’ve gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can’t open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.

    Suppose you’ve got a manuscript about the Saudis. Where are you going to shop it? Think Cambridge University Press will be publishing anything anytime soon?

    Mark Steyn: The vanishing jihad exposés

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/mark-steyn-jihad-1797347-exposs-column

    Mark Steyn: The vanishing jihad exposés

    Mark Steyn column

    MARK STEYN

    MARK STEYN

    Syndicated columnist

    How will we lose the war against “radical Islam”?

    Well, it won’t be in a tank battle. Or in the Sunni Triangle or the caves of Bora Bora. It won’t be because terrorists fly three jets into the Oval Office, Buckingham Palace and the Basilica of St Peter’s on the same Tuesday morning.

    The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who’s behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?

    For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called “Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World,” by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can’t find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let’s go to Amazon. Everything’s available there. And sure enough, you’ll come through to the “Alms for Jihad” page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: “The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world,” according to Canada’s Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes.

    Unfortunately, if you then try to buy “Alms for Jihad,” you discover that the book is “Currently unavailable. We don’t know when or if this item will be back in stock.” Hang on, it was only published last year. At Amazon, items are either shipped within 24 hours or, if a little more specialized, within four to six weeks, but not many books from 2006 are entirely unavailable with no restock in sight.

    Well, let us cross the ocean, thousands of miles from the Amazon warehouse, to the High Court in London. Last week, the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of “Alms for Jihad” and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:

    “Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.

    “As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false.”

    Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he’s a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

    I’m not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it’s considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.

    As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his “family, businesses and charities” are “entirely and manifestly false,” the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank’s funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz’s lawyer has said: “Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them.” Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or “Blessed Relief”) Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.

    In October 2001, the Treasury Department named Muwafaq as “an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen” and its chairman as a “specially designated global terrorist.” As the Treasury concluded, “Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief.”

    Indeed, this “charity” seems to have no other purpose than to fund jihad. It seeds Islamism wherever it operates. In Chechnya, it helped transform a reasonably conventional nationalist struggle into an outpost of the jihad. In the Balkans, it played a key role in replacing a traditionally moderate Islam with a form of Mitteleuropean Wahhabism. Pick a Muwafaq branch office almost anywhere on the planet and you get an interesting glimpse of the typical Saudi charity worker. The former head of its mission in Zagreb, Croatia, for example, is a guy called Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammad. Well, he’s called that most of the time. But he has at least four aliases and residences in at least three nations (Germany, Austria and Belgium). He was named as a bin Laden financier by the U.S. government and disappeared from the United Kingdom shortly after 9/11.

    So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?

    Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call “libel chill” is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He’s one of the richest men on the planet, and they’re an academic publisher with very small profit margins. But, even if you’ve got a bestseller, your pockets are unlikely to be deep enough: “House Of Saud, House Of Bush” did boffo biz with the anti-Bush crowd in America, but there’s no British edition – because Sheikh Mahfouz had indicated he was prepared to spend what it takes to challenge it in court, and Random House decided it wasn’t worth it.

    We’ve gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can’t open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.

    Suppose you’ve got a manuscript about the Saudis. Where are you going to shop it? Think Cambridge University Press will be publishing anything anytime soon?

    © MARK STEYN

    Muslim terrorists being picked on in British prisons, says lawyer

    Muslim terrorists being picked on in British prisons, says lawyer

    Poor little lambs. From the Daily Mail (thanks to Mao):

    The London lawyer representing the injured “dirty bomber” Dhiren Barot has warned that terrorist convicts are being targeted by other inmates in Britain’s jails.Solicitor Muddassar Arani accused prison chiefs of failing in their “duty of care” to protect terrorist inmates and predicted a Muslim “backlash” if victimisation continued.

    Her warning came as she gave details of the extensive injuries sustained by Barot when boiling liquid was thrown over him by fellow convicts in Durham’s Frankland Prison on 13 July.

    Barot – a Muslim convert from London who was jailed for life last year for plotting attacks in London and New York with explosive-filled limousines and a radioactive “dirty” bomb – was left with severe burns to his scalp, forehead, neck, back and hands after the attack.

    Ms Arani said the 35-year-old was in “extreme pain” and his wounds were infected. He is expected to seek compensation….

    Two other terrorist convicts – Hussain Osman, jailed for his part in the 21/7 attacks in London, and Omar Khyam, the leader of a gang that planned to blow up Bluewater shopping centre – have also been targeted at the jail in recent weeks. A fire was lit in Osman’s cell and Khyam has received death threats.

    Ms Arani said there had been a failure to protect terrorist convicts. “If we can’t treat them as human beings in prison then it does not reflect well on our society,” she said.

    Freed Guantanamo inmates return to jihad

     

    Freed Guantanamo inmates return to jihad

    Why should this surprise anyone? No effort was made at Gitmo to disabuse them of jihadist sympathies.

    “Freed Guantanamo inmates take up arms,” from The Age (thanks to all who sent this in):

    AT LEAST 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against allied forces following their release.They have been discovered mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not in Iraq, a US Defence Department spokesman told The Age yesterday.

    Commander Jeffrey Gordon said the detainees had, while in custody, falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small-arms merchants, low-level combatants or had offered other false explanations for being in Afghanistan.

    “We are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti-US propaganda or engaged in other activities,” said Commander Gordon.

    Bloody Islam Very graphic

    Bloody Islam

    By Ted Belman

    Islam in pictures NOW UPDATED

    If anyone has more pictures to add to this Power Point Presentation please forward.

    Palestinian “Love”

    Hitler’s Palestinian Progeny

    Posted by Ted Belman @ 9:20 am |

    Car Bomb Jihad

    Car Bomb Jihad
    By Dr. Walid Phares
    FrontPageMagazine.com | July 2, 2007

    British authorities are to be commended for successfully averting two (maybe more) car bomb attacks in London last week. At the same time, much of the reaction of Britain’s counter-terrorism community reveals that the country is not wholly prepared to deal with the terrorism threat.Let’s begin with the contradictory statements made by British authorities after the car bombs had been identified. On one hand, Britain’s new home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said after an emergency meeting of top officials that “we are currently facing the most serious and sustained threat to our security from international terrorism.” But other British authorities claimed that “they found no link between the defused car bomb and any terrorist group.” This sharp contradiction is indicative of the tough political background to the UK’s counter-terrorism efforts.

    The problem is this: Since the “7/7” attacks, authorities have hesitated to define the enemy. For London’s political establishment, any reference to the religious or ideological motivations of the terrorists is to be avoided. Examined closely, this attitude is the result of layers of “expertise” provided by academic “specialists” who advise against any statements that, as they see it, would exacerbate domestic tensions with the domestic Muslim community.

    Hence, British authorities have preemptively dropped any reference to the cause of the terrorists’ war — namely, Islamic jihadism — while failing to outline its global scope. By default, then, the government has conceded to the Islamists a political victory in the “battle of ideas.”

    A second series of questions accompanying the immediate debate about last week’s plot centered on the alleged link to al-Qaeda. The media went back and forth on the theory of Bin Laden’s responsibility — as if this single factor would shape the strategy to respond. To be successful, British investigators must bypass the dead-ended guessing about al-Qaeda’s formal role and spend their energies and time on the more important issue: Islamist penetration of British society.

    Bin Laden and Zawahiri may or may not have ordered this specific operation; al-Qaeda’s central apparatus may or may not be in charge of its execution; and the perpetrators may or not be professional terrorists. Of greater consequence for counterterrorism efforts is finding out who indoctrinated those who planted last week’s bombs and procuring detailed information about jihadist cells in the UK. Bin Laden will one day pass from the scene. But unless confronted, Britain’s jihadist network will live on.

    The question of whether the terrorists were “homegrown” or “international” circulated with dizzying frequency last week. Neither explanation is reassuring for the authorities. If the terrorists are “homegrown,” it reopens the debate about the radicalization of the British Muslim community. Obviously, officials want to avoid the matter. If, on the other hand, the terrorists are said to be “international,” with links to outside terrorist networks, officials would have to grapple with an equally unappealing fact: The followers of jihad, whether “homegrown” or “international,” operate without boundaries.

    Failure to consider the underlying cause of jihadist terrorism has stunted Britain’s intellectual debate. Consider that in the most recent plot, the two cars were declared as “linked” because the bombs they contained were made of the same material. But what if the two car bombs were filled with different types of explosives? Would they then have belonged to two different conflicts? It would have been odd in the extreme for police during the London Blitz of 1940 to wonder whether the bombs falling on the city were “linked” because they were made of the same material. But because many in Britain still refuse to acknowledge that they are at war with Islamic terrorism, we get the kind of official analysis that we saw last week.

    Surveying the situation from a distance, it seems that even the successes that British authorities have had can be exaggerated. For instance, the government prides itself for having installed more cameras in London than in all other European cities combined, a fact acknowledged by commentators who noted that the manhunt launched for the suspects last week was made possible by the release of film from London’s surveillance cameras. But the reason that this surveillance is so extensive is that for years the authorities were on the defensive, having caved in to those lobbies who insisted that the government should not target terrorists before they strike. Resources were diverted to spy on the terrorists, but little was done to preempt their attacks. The United States is under similar pressure by its own internal critics to follow the same path and stop monitoring the terrorists.

    Fortunately, British officials are becoming more clear-sighted. Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, former head of Britain’s joint intelligence committee, was among the first to conclude that the two car bombs were related to the attack on Glasgow Airport. It is the first step to understanding that what the UK is facing is not dispersed acts of violence but a war that is grounded in the expansion of Wahabism, Salafism and other forms of radical ideologies. There is a standing order by al-Qaeda and fatwas by Salafi asking their allies, local and international, to “strike into the heart of infidels, including the British.”

    Other strategic considerations are also in play. There is little doubt that the Islamists want to test the new cabinet of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and to drag him into an “engagement.” This in turn would provide extremists in Britain’s Muslim community the occasion to demonize Brown and weaken his resolve to confront both domestic and international terrorism. The jihadists’ move is clear, but the question remains: Is Britain seeing clearly?


    By Dr. Walid Phares
    FrontPageMagazine.com | July 2, 2007

    British authorities are to be commended for successfully averting two (maybe more) car bomb attacks in London last week. At the same time, much of the reaction of Britain’s counter-terrorism community reveals that the country is not wholly prepared to deal with the terrorism threat.Let’s begin with the contradictory statements made by British authorities after the car bombs had been identified. On one hand, Britain’s new home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said after an emergency meeting of top officials that “we are currently facing the most serious and sustained threat to our security from international terrorism.” But other British authorities claimed that “they found no link between the defused car bomb and any terrorist group.” This sharp contradiction is indicative of the tough political background to the UK’s counter-terrorism efforts.

    The problem is this: Since the “7/7” attacks, authorities have hesitated to define the enemy. For London’s political establishment, any reference to the religious or ideological motivations of the terrorists is to be avoided. Examined closely, this attitude is the result of layers of “expertise” provided by academic “specialists” who advise against any statements that, as they see it, would exacerbate domestic tensions with the domestic Muslim community.

    Hence, British authorities have preemptively dropped any reference to the cause of the terrorists’ war — namely, Islamic jihadism — while failing to outline its global scope. By default, then, the government has conceded to the Islamists a political victory in the “battle of ideas.”

    A second series of questions accompanying the immediate debate about last week’s plot centered on the alleged link to al-Qaeda. The media went back and forth on the theory of Bin Laden’s responsibility — as if this single factor would shape the strategy to respond. To be successful, British investigators must bypass the dead-ended guessing about al-Qaeda’s formal role and spend their energies and time on the more important issue: Islamist penetration of British society.

    Bin Laden and Zawahiri may or may not have ordered this specific operation; al-Qaeda’s central apparatus may or may not be in charge of its execution; and the perpetrators may or not be professional terrorists. Of greater consequence for counterterrorism efforts is finding out who indoctrinated those who planted last week’s bombs and procuring detailed information about jihadist cells in the UK. Bin Laden will one day pass from the scene. But unless confronted, Britain’s jihadist network will live on.

    The question of whether the terrorists were “homegrown” or “international” circulated with dizzying frequency last week. Neither explanation is reassuring for the authorities. If the terrorists are “homegrown,” it reopens the debate about the radicalization of the British Muslim community. Obviously, officials want to avoid the matter. If, on the other hand, the terrorists are said to be “international,” with links to outside terrorist networks, officials would have to grapple with an equally unappealing fact: The followers of jihad, whether “homegrown” or “international,” operate without boundaries.

    Failure to consider the underlying cause of jihadist terrorism has stunted Britain’s intellectual debate. Consider that in the most recent plot, the two cars were declared as “linked” because the bombs they contained were made of the same material. But what if the two car bombs were filled with different types of explosives? Would they then have belonged to two different conflicts? It would have been odd in the extreme for police during the London Blitz of 1940 to wonder whether the bombs falling on the city were “linked” because they were made of the same material. But because many in Britain still refuse to acknowledge that they are at war with Islamic terrorism, we get the kind of official analysis that we saw last week.

    Surveying the situation from a distance, it seems that even the successes that British authorities have had can be exaggerated. For instance, the government prides itself for having installed more cameras in London than in all other European cities combined, a fact acknowledged by commentators who noted that the manhunt launched for the suspects last week was made possible by the release of film from London’s surveillance cameras. But the reason that this surveillance is so extensive is that for years the authorities were on the defensive, having caved in to those lobbies who insisted that the government should not target terrorists before they strike. Resources were diverted to spy on the terrorists, but little was done to preempt their attacks. The United States is under similar pressure by its own internal critics to follow the same path and stop monitoring the terrorists.

    Fortunately, British officials are becoming more clear-sighted. Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, former head of Britain’s joint intelligence committee, was among the first to conclude that the two car bombs were related to the attack on Glasgow Airport. It is the first step to understanding that what the UK is facing is not dispersed acts of violence but a war that is grounded in the expansion of Wahabism, Salafism and other forms of radical ideologies. There is a standing order by al-Qaeda and fatwas by Salafi asking their allies, local and international, to “strike into the heart of infidels, including the British.”

    Other strategic considerations are also in play. There is little doubt that the Islamists want to test the new cabinet of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and to drag him into an “engagement.” This in turn would provide extremists in Britain’s Muslim community the occasion to demonize Brown and weaken his resolve to confront both domestic and international terrorism. The jihadists’ move is clear, but the question remains: Is Britain seeing clearly?

    Breaking: TERROR ATTACK AT SCOTTLAND AIRPORT: SUV Rams Gates Of Glasgow Airport And Blows Up

    Breaking: TERROR ATTACK AT SCOTTLAND AIRPORT: SUV Rams

    Gates Of Glasgow Airport And Blows Up

    Jeep Cherokee full of gas cans drives into Terminal #1 in failed attempt to kill passengers ***UPDATE: Police Now Officially Characterizing It As A Terrorist Event, 10 AM PST***

    Eyewitness on Sky TV: Car was full of gas cans. Driver and passenger were throwing gasoline all around the scene after they crashed the SUV into the terminal door. After ramming an airport gate, the guy charged the terminal as flames began to burst from the vehicle, and angled it in order to best ram through the glass terminal door and kill passengers inside. One man from the vehicle burst into flames. Amidst the fire and chaos, the terrorists were wrestled to the ground by Taxi drivers and passengers.

    Passenger Eyewitness: “Things like that happen in England all the time. You never expect it here in little Glasgow. There were no police around right away.”

    INJURIES REPORTED: “There were people injured, because I’ve seen them lying on the road; I was standing next to departures, I heard a great big massive bang, and then all the folk from departures were running through arrivals.”

    Another Eyewitness: “They wrestled him to the ground – the fire was burning through his clothes – and finally put him out with a fire extinguisher.”

    Another eyewitness said one of the men had tried to open the boot of the vehicle but was not successful.”Police tried to restrain him but the guy was quite strong and he started fighting off the police,” he said.

    glasgowterrorport

    Sky Update: Two people have now been arrested.

    POLICE STATEMENT: WE ARE INVESTIGATING THE LINKS TO YESTERDAY”S FOILED TERROR ATTACKS IN LONDON

    English Prime Minister’s Statement: “We are monitoring the events in Glasgow”

    Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.’s Reaction: “What’s important to understand from this, is that we are at war. We are at war with Global terrorism.”

    glasgowcarburn

    Factoids: Glasgow Airport caters primarily to short-haul flights, and lacks the security of major airports. It has no concrete airport barriers.
    One British report described the men as “Asian” which is a common British term for Pakistanis
    Britain estimates there are 2,000 “potential Islamist terrorists” living in the U.K.

    Sky News

    Burning Car In Airport Terminal
    Updated: 16:23, Saturday June 30, 2007

    A jeep has driven into the terminal building at Glasgow airport and caught fire, police have confirmed.

    Witnesses reported hearing a series of loud “bangs” and saw a man on fire.

    The scene
    It is thought a Cherokee 4×4 smashed through security barriers at the airport, the busiest in Scotland.

    Police say it is too early to say whether the incident – which comes after failed car bomb attacks on London – was related to terrorism.

    James Edgar told Sky News: “People were running past like they has missed their flight.

    Posted by Pat Dollard 15 Comments

    Jun 29th 2007

    Arizona Lawmaker Working with Mexican Drug Dealers and Coyotes

    Arizona Lawmaker Working with Mexican Drug Dealers and Coyotes


    by Sher Zieve

     

    Arizona Congressional Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), a former Green Party member, has proposed a law that would stop US citizens from protecting their property and lives from illegal aliens who cross the US-Mexico border. Although directed at the citizen organization The Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, Sinema’s proposed HB2286 states that “domestic terrorism” shall include: “An individual or group of individuals commits domestic terrorism if the individual or group of individuals are not affiliated with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity and associate with another individual or group of individuals as an organization, group, corporation or company for the purpose of patrolling to detect alleged illegal activity or to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon.”
     

    As her proposal includes all “individuals”, those US citizens attempting to protect their properties and families from the illegal hordes (which comprise both drug dealers and other illegal aliens) would be tried in a court of law and sentenced to jail time. The legislation further states: “If the court sentences the defendant [US citizen] to a term of probation, the court shall order that as an initial condition of probation the defendant be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of not less than six months. This jail term of incarceration shall not be deferred, deleted or otherwise suspended and shall commence on the date of sentencing. This subsection does not apply to persons who are sentenced to serve a period of incarceration in the state department of corrections.” If passed, this will be a Class 5 felony. No statutes against the drug dealers and illegals have been proposed by Sinema. With the recent decision by our liberal courts against US Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, and the granting of immunity to Mexican drug dealer Osvaldo Aldrete Davila for his testimony against the agents, common sense and the law have finally and perhaps inexorably been turned upside-down. The US Border Patrol Agents are in jail for doing their jobs and a drug dealer is still free to practice his trade. Does this make any sense, common or otherwise, at all?

    What Sinema is effectively saying is that she supports illegal immigrants over legal US citizens. And what she has effectively done is sided with Mexican drug dealers and illegals (including terrorists) crossing our border. For some time, Sinema has been trying to shut down the Minutemen citizens’ organization and calls them “scary.” Apparently, however, she doesn’t view either drug smugglers or those crossing illegally in the millions across our border that way. And, should this bill be passed, US citizens will no longer be allowed to advise the US Border Patrol of illegal border crossings—leaving the border less protected than it already is. The Minutemen have helped—not hindered. With the New Leftist Democrat Congress in control, I have no doubt that this new suppression of rights will spread to other states—and soon.

    Responding to Sinema’s proposed bill, Minutemen leader Chris Simcox said: “Her bill would render all neighborhood watch groups illegal, as well as the Guardian Angels. And anyone who is not sponsored or sanctioned by a law enforcement agency would be deemed to be illegal.” Note: This, of course, includes ALL US citizens.

    With the plethora of new anti-free speech legislations proposed by Democrats, we have been sternly warned. Chillingly, Stalinism has been resurrected and is alive and well in the United States of America.

     


    References:

    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/hb2286p.htm

     

    http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2007/01/20/news/news1.txt

     

    Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.