Category Archives: Muslim Terrorists

Fatwa Issued Against Seattle Cartoonist

I feel so very sorry for Molly Norris.  She is the Seattle cartoonist who, tongue in cheek, made a declaration that April 10, 2010 should be known as “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.”

As you may know, Islam does not permit renditions of Mohammed.  Worse than putting pressure on her newspaper to fire her for her insensitive comment, she is now on a “hit list” – that’s right…a fatwa has been issued by the Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the imam who’s been indicated as inspiring the Fort Hood, Texas massacre as well as the plot by two New Jersey men to kill U.S. Soldiers.  Anwar al-Awlaki singled out Molly Norris as a “prime target,” saying “her proper abode is hellfire.”

The FBI Special Agent, David Gomez, told reporters that “We understand the absolute seriousness of a threat from an Al Qaeda…and are attempting to do everything in our power to assist the individuals on that list to effectively protect themselves and change their behavior to make themselves less of a target.”

She has been told to “go ghost,” meaning moving, changing her name, and wiping away her identity.  Her life, as she knows it, is gone, or her life will literally be gone.

Our government is not going to protect her; she’s out on her own, a target of religious bigotry and tyranny.

Granted, this was a blatantly offensive comment — I know something about being offensive without specifically intending to do so – but when an American is put on a hit list by a religious leader of a community that argues it is pro-peace, it makes one wonder if words are meaningful when actions are contrary to those words.

I call on all Muslims around the world to crack down on Muslims killing Muslims, and Muslims killing infidels.  This is not civilized and cannot be negotiated with.  Only other Muslims can force their brethren to value free speech and opposing opinions, even objectionable ones…especially objectionable ones.

Bravery in the Face of Home Grown Terrorism

Two recent acts of bravery bring up a clear point:

1.  A nine year old boy in a Southern town was in the passenger seat of his parents’ car with three siblings all under the age of three in the back.  His mother darted into a convenience store, and a huge man (who was lurking nearby) jumped into the driver’s seat, i.e., it was a car-jacking in the works.  The nine year old had the courage and the presence of mind not to be “politically correct” which would have meant sitting quietly and obeying an adult.  Nope, not at all.  This kid grabbed the car keys and held them tight to his right side.  The would-be carjacker hit the boy’s head against the passenger door in an attempt to get the keys, and failed as the boy was resolute.  As the boy said later, “I didn’t want my family to be taken.”  The car-jacker ran from the car, fell, and was apprehended by police who had been called from the convenience store.

2.  A young female (of course I’m proud) civilian police officer stopped an Army officer from continuing his murders of Fort Hood soldiers by standing up to him and shooting him numerous times while being shot three times herself.  Unfortunately, except for military police (MPs) and civilian police, soldiers on a base do not carry weapons, and are, therefore, sitting ducks for the murderous rampage of “one of their own.”  As it turns out, by all media reports, the history of this so-called American Army officer was clearly one of a terrorist. 

There was a history of his radical Muslim ideology.  Reports against him had been made, but political correctness ruled the day.  Because he had worshipped at a mosque with a radical imam who allegedly had made contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers and had written on the Internet Muslim extremist comments (which, I understand, included a defense of suicide bombers), had tried to indoctrinate patients and his school mates even complained about the political leanings of his class assignments and so much more, was no reason, many authorities have said, to assume he was a home-grown terrorist.  That political correctness caused the death of 13 and serious injury to dozens.  Never mind the fear it has generated on bases around the country and the world where the bullet or bomb can come from the “inside.”

Instead of facing this threat (and please do remember the plots that were foiled against other military bases on American soil in the past several years), we are being told not to “jump to conclusions.”  Well, without jumping to the correct conclusions in a timely manner, hanging on instead to political correctness (meaning that no one should criticize or profile), our military men and women and their families have a good reason to be afraid and angry.  They pay the price.

That nine year old boy didn’t sit complacently and be a “good boy.”  He took charge to protect his own.  We should do the same for our military and their families.  Those who have expressed at any time any philosophy resembling radical Islamic hate should be marginalized, scrutinized, put under surveillance, and supervised.

The first obligation of the American government is not “Cash for Clunkers.”  It’s for the safety of the populace.  The morale of our military took a large hit when they discovered that they were not safe from worldwide terrorists at their own desks. 

Dump all that “PTSD by proxy” nonsense.  Look at the truth, without which we are neither free nor safe.

Lockerbie Bomber Treated Like a Hero

I am sick to my stomach and soul that Scotland freed the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds, allowing the terminally ill creep to die in his homeland, Libya, and rejecting American pleas for justice in the attack that killed 270 people.

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi served ONLY eight years of his life sentence.  Because he’s been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, Scottish Judge Secretary MacAskill felt that since “Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power,” he should be set free to die in his own bed in Libya.  The mass murderer was convicted in 2001 of taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 – just before Christmas.  The airliner exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, and all 259 people aboard and 11 on the ground died when it crashed.

This evil man has been given three months to live, or so the doctors guess.  He is being given the luxury of dying in his country, in his town, in his home and with his family.  Is that appropriately compassionate?  Well, my take is that this is definitely compassionate, but definitely NOT appropriate. 

It is an appalling, disgusting, sickening decision made by misguided notions of compassion.  Compassion for this man is an insult to all the victims.  The compassion should be directed to the victims and the ongoing, permanent suffering of their families.  This is misplaced compassion, misdirected compassion, and inappropriate compassion.  All the families of the victims got the bits and pieces of their loved ones returned to them in a box.  The same should happen to al-Meghari. 

Why is this happening?  As one wise man once said, “Follow the money…or the oil.”  Libya’s leader, Moammar Gadhafi collected al-Megrahi on his private jet.  Western energy companies (including Britain’s BP PLC) have moved into Libya in an attempt to tap the country’s vast oil and gas wealth.  Gadhafi, as reported by FoxNews.com, has renounced terrorism, dismantled Libya’s secret nuclear program, and accepted his government’s responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing.  He has paid compensation to the victim’s families.  I don’t know why he wants this vile creature back in Libya to die.  Perhaps it’s because there’s more to the story…

When al-Megrahi landed in Tripoli, more than 1,000 young Libyans gathered to welcome him, cheering and waving Libyan flags.  You should know that large public gatherings are rare in Libya, and tightly controlled by the government (especially on the tarmac where Gadhafi’s private jet lands). For a country that is supposed to have turned its back on terrorism, protecting, nurturing and celebrating a terrorist murderer is perplexing.  Perhaps it means that the roots of Libya are still firmly planted in extremist mentalities.  Or maybe it means that, having bowed to economic and political pressure, Libya wished to flex a bicep at the expense of 270 victims and their innumerable family members and friends.

To have put al-Meghari on a plane and then to welcome him as a hero, allowing him to die in peace is, in my opinion, an insult to the values of all civilization which believes that life is precious.  He forfeited the preciousness of his life when he thought it righteous to murder, killing men, women and children who didn’t mean him or anyone else any harm. 

Shame on Scotland.  Shame on Libya.  Shame on Scotland again, for not inflicting a death penalty on an unrepentant mass murderer.  We do not show the world that we value life when we impose minor consequences on those who devalue and steal lives.

Law & Order and Mumbai Terrorists

I am a woman of certain habits. I like the same breakfast everyday (raisin bran with blueberries and skim milk and one fried egg inside a toasted English muffin….for those of you who are curious), and I love to have my before-radio-show lunch while watching re-runs of Law & Order on television.

Yesterday, they played an episode which was timely, considering the recent Islamic terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India targeting innocents in general and citizens of Britain and America and Jews in particular – the latter who were tortured before being murdered in cold blood.  Over 200 persons were murdered; about 400 injured.  Nine of these Muslim terrorists were killed by Indian commandos.  One has been captured and has given information about this highly organized conspiracy and its training roots in Pakistan. 

For my purposes here…one ray of sunlight:  All of the Muslim cemeteries have refused, according to a Wall Street Journal  account, to bury these nine Muslim terrorists.  How about that!

Now back to the parallel with yesterday’s Law & Order re-run.  A Muslim- American is found dead…beheaded.  It is all set-up to look like bigoted Americans killed him just because he is Muslim.  It turns out, after a lot of posturing about prejudice against Muslims, that this man was killed by his own cousin: a bona fide terrorist trying to bring uranium into the U.S. to deploy in Manhattan to kill as many Americans as possible.  The beheaded man was informing on his cousin and all of those in the neighborhood conspiracy.  That’s why his own people killed him.

The Imam, the local religious leader, is lying to the police to protect the murderous cousin because they threatened to kill him if he didn’t.  The Imam is measuring his importance to the community against his responsibilities to the laws of America — laws of decency and morality, really.

In a touching interaction between the Imam and the District Attorney, the DA asks the Imam if he is a Muslim first or an American first.  The Imam struggles with that, saying that he has been working very hard to keep young people in his mosque from getting recruited into terrorism and he would lose that.  The DA points out that the dead man’s wife lost everything.  It is left there.

In court, the black defense attorney, playing into the “race card” questions the Imam about his client’s whereabouts during the murder.  At first the Imam lies. Then he tells the entire truth: about the uranium, the murder, and the plot to decimate all of New York City.  The murderer is convicted, but the Imam’s mosque is burned to the ground — retribution from some in his community.

There is a last minute angry exchange in Arabic as the murderer is removed from the court.  The DA asks the Imam what they both said.  The murderer said, “Burn!”  To that, the Imam had replied, “I love America.”

To that “fictional” Imam and to those who run the Muslim cemeteries in India refusing to accept the bodies of mass murders my admiration, my respect, my appreciation, my prayers, and my hope that more will join you to “out” or “reject” those who perpetrate evil.

Black and White Reigns

Andrew Klavan, an award-winning author of mystery novels, wrote a brilliant op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal (7/25/08) in which he stated exactly what I believe. 

He pointed out that liberal Hollywood films about the war on terror (In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, and Redacted) have all failed, largely because they propose to make the actions and philosophies of terrorists and coalition forces moral “equivalents,” because they disrespect the military, and “seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism.”  These films depict “good” guys as indistinguishable from “bad” guys, ultimately “denigrating the very heroes who defend us.”

Klavan points out that the big blockbuster The Dark Knight, is a conservative movie about the war, like 300 before it, and these films value morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right.  Liberal, ultimately anti-American, films are realistic and direct, while conservative, pro-values films are usually fantasies using comic-inspired heroes (Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, Spiderman 3).

What makes the real world difficult is that “good” guys must defend values in a world that does not universally embrace them, and that puts “good” guys in the awful position of sometimes having to be intolerant, unkind, and brutal in order to ultimately defend the “good” values we love.

As a psychotherapist, I talk to people on the air every day who try to keep out of the way of conflict, confrontation, and judgment, so they will be liked and seen as “good” guys.  I remind them that “good” guys risk, and sometimes cross the line, to stand between evil and the innocent who need protection from the few.

Instead, as Klavan points out, “When heroes arise who take those difficulties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness.  We prosecute and execute the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve.”

That means that sometimes good men have to kill (“murder” is to kill an innocent) to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate values in order to maintain those values.  That’s just a fact of real life in which good and evil have always co-existed.

 

Fear Tactics and Free Speech

Two year ago, a Danish journalist/cartoonist gave his political opinion with a newspaper cartoon that depicted a caricature of Muhammed, and there were death threats and rioting by those who described themselves as “offended.”  The cartoonist was arrested on charges of discrimination against Muslims.

A Paris court also handed down a $23,325 fine against Brigitte Bardot, the former screen sex symbol and current animal rights campaigner.  She was also ordered to pay $1,555 in damages to MRAP, a prominent French “anti-racist” group which filed a lawsuit over a letter she published in her animal rights foundation newsletter and which she also had sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.  Evidently, she had criticized the Muslim feast of Aid-el-Kebir, which is celebrated by the slaughtering of sheep, and had expressed her concern that Muslim laws were beginning to dominate French culture and jurisprudence. French anti-racism laws prevent the incitement of hatred and discrimination on racial and/or religious grounds.  Bardot had previously been convicted four times for “inciting racial hatred.”  Her attorney said, “She is tired of this type of proceeding.  She has the impression that people want to silence her.” No kidding.

English courts are now becoming a popular destination for libel suits against American authors.  The cases have largely been brought against American writers and scholars for criticizing Islam or “naming names” of those who appear to support and fund terrorism.  To avoid costly litigation, some American publishers are withdrawing the publication of those books.  Unlike in American law, in Britain, the burden of proof in libel cases is on the author, since British law considers the disputed information as false until proven true. 

Here in the United States, Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Joseph Lieberman (Ind/D-CT) have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, which bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law.  The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  This legislation wouldn’t protect those who recklessly or maliciously print false information, but it would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards.

According to Specter and Lieberman as quoted in The Wall Street Journal (7/14/08):
 “The 1964 Supreme Court decision in NY Times vs. Sullivan established that journalists must be free to report on newsworthy events unless they recklessly or maliciously publish falsehoods.  At that time, opponents of civil rights were filing libel suits to silence news organizations that exposed state officials’ refusal to enforce federal civil rights laws.  Now we are engaged in another great struggle – this time against Islamic terror – and again, the enemies of freedom seek to silence free speech.  Our legislation will help ensure that they do not succeed.”

The anti-free speech forces have accomplished a lot in Europe and in our own universities (with their tyranny of the “politically correct”).  This is the time to draw that line in the sand.

Where’s NOW When You Really Need Them?

According to the Associated Press (February 1, 2008), remote-controlled explosives strapped to two mentally retarded women detonated in a coordinated attack on Baghdad pet bazaars on Friday, killing at least 73 people.  The women had Down Syndrome.  Considering the explosives were detonated by remote control, they probably were completely unaware that they were to be used as human bombs.  The attacks were most likely the work of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Associated Press records show that since the start of the war, at least 151 people have been killed in about 17 attacks by female suicide bombers.  Involving women in fighting violates cultural taboos in Iraq, but Al-Qaeda in Iraq is recruiting females to perform suicide attacks because militants are increasingly desperate for volunteers.  Women in Iraq wear the long black overgarments called abayas, and can avoid searches at checkpoints, because men are not allowed to search them, and there aren’t enough female guards.  This is an obvious “PC” mistake – this is war, and such proprieties need to be put by the wayside, because people are being murdered.

I wish NOW (the National Organization for Women) would spend less time on rants assuring women that murdering the babies in their bodies is some kind of noble “right,” and spend their time in the Middle East, protecting women from being used as cannon fodder.

A Lesson From The Massacre At Virginia Tech

     I am “the proud mother of a deployed American paratrooper,” and because of that fact I have, perhaps, a unique perspective on the massacre at Virginia Tech.  
     As a mother I, of course, thought about how horrendous this whole nightmare is to the families of the victims as well as all the emotional damage to the survivors.  From listening to the reports on this heinous occurrence, I heard repeatedly that the shooter had to reload several times and went from classroom to classroom.  As a military mom, I immediately wished that our young people had the same obligation and experience that all young folks in Israel have: two years of military training and service.  Those reloading and trolling periods were windows of opportunity that only young folks trained militarily would have been able to use to subdue or terminate the perp and save many lives. Continue reading