CAIR is soooo lucky!

Some organizations have all the luck - take the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), for example.

-- For several years, they were classified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case in which an Islamic charity was eventually convicted of funding Hamas terrorism.

-- Unbeknownst to the public or the Congress, last year the Justice Department dropped the case against CAIR. This despite a 2009 finding by a federal judge that the "Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR ... with the [Holy Land Foundation] ... and with Hamas." For more details, see this letter from Rep. Peter King to Attorney General Eric Holder. Apparently political appointees at Justice overruled the career professionals working the case.

-- Today, CNS News reported that CAIR has written to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to call for an agency-wide investigation of whether the people in charge of training national security personnel are 'Islamophobic.'

So now the organization that Holder and his senior staff saved from an indictment for its terrorist links wants to vet the people training national security personnel on terrorism issues. If your head is spinning, you should take that as a sign of mental health. You still retain some instinct for self-preservation.

Bye bye OBL

Since everyone else and his brother (not to mention sister) has expressed a view on the death of Osama Bin Laden, I've decided to sound off well.

First, I'm glad. Very glad.

Second, I'm very proud of our military for pulling off such a mission.

Third, the White House or Defense Department should publish a picture of Bin Laden's corpse as soon as possible. No one who wants to believe he's still alive will be persuaded by a reference to DNA testing.

Fourth, it's unfortunate that some people think that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden are the only Islamist terrorists around. Killing him was an excellent move, but it doesn't 'solve' the problem.

Fifth, what did Pakistani authorities know? Someone on high must have known about Bin Laden's presence and protected him. Only questions are, how many were there and who are they?

Sixth, we've got NATO bombing the house where Colonel Qaddafi was sleeping at almost the same time the Navy Seals were attacking Bin Laden's house. Anyone care to articulate our Democratic president's policy regarding assassination as a tool of foreign policy?

Comments, anyone?

What about the Arabs?

Sara asked me to comment on this article in the Christian Science Monitor by Walter Rodgers entitled, "The Arabs' worst enemy: themselves." She also wondered asked how I thought the absence - or presence - of Osama Bin Laden affected current Muslim/Mideast/Western relations.

Rodgers argues that the Arabs are their own worst enemies because they blame anyone but themselves for their problems and shortcomings. He argues that this makes it very difficult for them to achieve the maturity necessary to, for example, operate a functioning democracy in Iraq.

I think Rodgers is basically right, although it's very unfair for any American to decry the political dysfunction in Baghdad when you look at what's going on in Washington. Let's see: we have the world's most powerful post-industrial democracy teetering on the brink because no one knows what the tax rates will be January 1; tonight President Obama begrudgingly acknowledges the possibility of a ....'framework agreement' on same sometime in the near future. Nor has the Congress passed either a budget resolution or a single appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011 ... which started over two months ago. What was that about incompetence?

Rodgers also ignores another factor that contributes to dysfunction in the Arab world, and which I refer to in today's other entry: the Muslim world is fed an alarming diet of hatred and violence by its spiritual leaders. And, gee, what part of the world displays more hatred and violence? I think that's hardly a coincidence.

So does Osama Bin Laden's presence or absence affect this equation? Since I assume he's alive, that question becomes: if he were dead, would things improve? I have to say, I don't think so. He's the one who said the Arabs love a strong horse. When the United States appears strong, things go well for us. When we appear weak, they don't. I don't know if killing Bin Laden would appear as a sign of our strength, or whether he would simply become a martyr. But I know that our uncertain policy and lack of attention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine hurt us tremendously, regardless of whether Bin Laden lives or dies.

More on airport security

No, unfortunately this entry isn't a joke like the last one; it links to thoughtful pieces on airport security by Barry Rubin and Patrick Poole.

Rubin argues (and I agree with him fully) that all the fancy airport screening, before and after this latest 'junk' escalation, is wasteful and irrelevant. As he puts it, "Basically, it can be described as follows: Let's intensively search fifteen million at random--worse, using silly profiling guidelines--in hope of finding one or two terrorists who, if they exist at all, are almost certainly using an innovative tactic that will get by our procedures." He argues that the only real requirement is profiling and checking for terrorists entering on international flights - but of course, profiling is a dirty word.

Meanwhile, Poole has produced a study of ten failures of U.S. domestic intelligence: Islamists who were given positions of trust and access to government at various levels. It's a quick but sobering read, and he includes sources, in case you want to check for yourself.

Bismarck allegedly said (Wikiquotes says it's apocryphal) that God provides special protection for three categories: drunks, idiots and the United States of America. We'd better be careful because we're using up our special dispensation at an alarming rate.

Airport security

Here, from an email that Rachel sent me, is the best solution I've heard to the recurring problem of airport security screening:

"The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports. It’s an armored booth you step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on your person. Israel sees this as a win-win situation for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It will also eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial. You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter, an announcement: 'Attention standby passengers — we now have a seat available on flight 6709. Shalom!'"

At it again

For the second time, there is a report that Al Qaeda members were wiped out by the bubonic plague. The first incident took place in January of last year. This time, some 40 people died. Both cases occurred in training camps in Algeria.

This time, there was speculation that they were killed the traditional route (bubonic plague is transmitted by the fleas living on rats). However, "there are now claims the cell was developing the disease as a weapon to use against western cities." (Thanks to Daily Alert.)

More on Lockerbie

I suspected at the time that the UK government would never have allowed convicted terrorist bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi to go free in Libya without having at least notified the U.S. government.

It turns out that the U.S. government gave a tacit go-ahead. According to The Sunday Times and the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. embassy in London wrote the Scottish government to say that (1) it wanted al-Megrahi to stay in prison but (2) if he didn't, it preferred compassionate release to sending him home under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement.

Now that the Scottish government is under fire, it wants the U.S. government to agree to release its documents. Too bad the Scots are refusing to testify on the Hill - if they did, this story would be very clear to all. It would certainly be educational to hear a U.S. spokesman explain just why it was preferable for al-Megrahi to go free. (Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

Unfortunately, Attorney General Eric Holder isn't the only American deep in denial. Jeff Epstein of America's Truth Forum, "felt it best to leave" after he asked questions at an interfaith dialogue held in a Connecticut synagogue.

He asked Ingrid Mattson, director of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), about the ties of that organization to the Muslim Brotherhood. Epstein was accused of injecting politics into the dialogue; never mind that the Muslim Brotherhood is devoted to hatred of the Jews.

The rabbi who organized the event said he wasn't familiar with ISNA or its documented links to jihad. He said the purpose of the dialogue to 'build understanding'. What kind of understanding? Of what's going on? In that case, he ought to do his homework beforehand.

This 'bout sums it up

Watch Attorney General Eric Holder tap dance around direct questions from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. Holder refuses to state that radical Islam could have been a motivation in any of the recent terrorist attacks in the United States, including the one in Times Square.

Amazing. What's more amazing, no one seems to notice or care, except for Rep. Smith and the editors at Human Events.

The long twilight war

If you're tired of reading that Faisal Shahzad tried to blow up people in Times Square because of health care policy or because his home was foreclosed, here's a rational, sober analysis by Fouad Ajami. Shazhad and others of his ilk are, he says, represent a serious threat:

"This is a long twilight war, the struggle against radical Islamism. We can't wish it away. No strategy of winning 'hearts and minds,' no great outreach, will bring this struggle to an end. America can't conciliate these furies. These men of nowhere - Faisal Shahzad, Nidal Malik Hasan, the American-born renegade cleric Anwar Awlaki now holed up in Yemen and their likes - are a deadly breed of combatants in this new kind of war. Modernity both attracts and unsettles them. America is at once the object of their dreams and the scapegoat onto which they project their deepest malignancies."

What to do with Faisal Shahzad

If proven guilty, what should be done to Faisal Shahzad? Senators Joe Liberman and Scott Brown have introduced legislation to strip him and others of his ilk of their U.S. citizenship. Zuhdi Jasser (and Rachel) have a better idea: try him/them as traitors.

As Jasser puts it: "Shahzad's cowardly attempt to kill innocent Americans in Times Square clearly demonstrates his loyalty lies with the Islamist radicals and not his chosen countrymen in the United States. His actions were a result of his faith in the supremacy of an Islamic State over the United States. His citizenship oath was given falsely in 2009 and was in the direct service of powers at war with the United States. His prosecution should encompass the gravity of those actions."

Yes.

Who's out to get us?

Daniel Pipes lists here all the excuses people have dreamed up to keep from acknowledging that the various attacks on New York City (and the rest of the United States) since 9/11 have been the result of jihadist ideology and action.

And Barry Rubin speculates on reactions in that vein to other crises, from the Revolutionary War to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

My analysis of the problem: "Denial is not a river in Africa." We won't get anywhere until we acknowledge publicly that Islamism is the problem here. Period. People are afraid to admit the truth, either because it pulverizes their pet theories, or because they'd have to realize just what kind of threat we face.

So imagine the gratification of hearing the CNN news anchor this morning say that she'd put together all the info on these attacks, looking for the common denominator and discovered that it was - can you believe it - Islamic fundamentalism. CNN no less! Wow!

(Thanks to Dick.)

Whose side are they on?

The British Telegraph describes here the actual workings of a charity, Muslim Aid, that was recently praised by Prince Charles and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Lots and lots of money funneled to Hamas, despite the fact Hamas is listed by the EU as a terrorist organization. Moreover, Muslim Aid received at least 830,000 British pounds in public subsidies last year (more than $1 million).

So what do you think: are the Prince, the Prime Minister and many other government officials extremely naive, or do they actually support Muslim Aid's mission - but are too cowardly to admit it in public?

Correction - no, modification!

Patrick took issue with yesterday's airy dismissal of Russian allegations of Georgian involvement in the recent suicide bombings in Moscow and elsewhere. He argues that the Georgians have dabbled in Islamist terrorism directed at Russia in the past, and may be doing so again. Unfortunately, he has a point.

Since I'm never wrong, it's time to invoke the Prussian rules of order. For those who don't know them, they're very simple:

(1) the boss is always right.
(2) when the boss is wrong, rule no. 1 goes into effect.

Since I'm the boss of this blog, the rules apply to me!

Black widows

Here's an update on the female suicide bombers who exploded themselves in two Moscow subway stations. Although the head of the Kremlin Security Council accused the Georgian government of instigating the attacks, it's unlikely many people believe that tale. More likely are the following nuggets:

-- one woman may have been mentally retarded - and, indeed, it wouldn't be the first time that such a person was exploited this way.

-- the women are most likely from Chechnya, although that has not yet been confirmed.

-- they may have belonged to a group of some 30 women aged 18-25 who were trained at a terrorist school in Turkey. Nine were previously accounted for, which by my count leaves 19 still at large.

-- the intelligence folks knew an attack was coming, because they were checking women entering the metro. Unfortunately, they didn't find the bombers.

Female suicide bombers are statistically more successful than males (eg, they kill more people), because they arouse fewer suspicions. In Iraq, where they've also been used, it's pretty clear that many are coerced. While many Chechen women may have abundant grounds for seeking revenge, I remain skeptical that they really want to get it this way.

More on 'right-wing extremism'

Remember the report issued several months ago by the Department of Homeland Security warning of the terrorist threat from right-wing extremists? Well, the group Americans for Limited Government (ALG) filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for details on how the report was compiled.

The response from DHS listed numerous websites and blogs, suggesting to ALG that these, rather than intelligence research or analysis, served as the primary source for information for the report. DHS has yet to refute ALG's assessment.

Terrorism in the US

If you want some information on individuals prosecuted or detained by U.S. authorities for alleged terrorist actions, here's a handy-dandy fact sheet from the Department of Justice. It starts with the prosecutions arising from the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and includes the four individuals just detained for attempting to bomb a synagogue in the Bronx and to shoot down military plans. (Thanks to Jeff.)

For more information, visit the website of the the Investigative Project on Terrorism. It contains a mother lode of trial documents and other relevant material.