Quote:

The custodian of most of the major mosques in America acts as a front for the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, and publishes and distributes Islamic literature that exhorts Muslims to "kill" any Westerners who get in the way of spreading Islam, WND has learned. "No political system or material power should put hindrances in the way of preaching Islam. If someone does this, then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission," asserts an Islamic publication distributed by the North American Islamic Trust. NAIT holds title to more than 300 mosques in America – including the large Islamic center outside Washington where the Fort Hood terrorist and some of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped. NAIT also owns and controls the mosque in Orange County, Calif., that converted al-Qaida spokesman Adam Gadahn to Islam. Gadahn in a video released Sunday exhorted Muslims serving in the U.S. military to follow in the footsteps of accused Fort Hood terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. He also called for attacks on mass transportation, along with assassinations or kidnappings of key figures in the government, industry and media. The Justice Department recently blacklisted NAIT as an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to funnel millions of dollars to Palestinian terrorists. NAIT Trustee Gaddoor Saidi was individually listed as an unindicted co-conspirator, as well, in the Holy Land Foundation case -- the largest terror finance trial in U.S. history, which ended in guilty verdicts on all 108 counts. In addition, the government identified NAIT as a front for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in America. Hamas, which was designated a terrorist organization in 1995, has murdered 17 Americans and injured hundreds of other U.S. citizens. Chicago-based NAIT also handles the finances for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association, and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, which, shockingly, make up the Muslim establishment in America, according to the new book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America." The Muslim groups have been vehemently protesting the FBI's use of undercover informants in mosques and its recent seizure of several mosques in America. Last year, a mosque leader in Detroit was fatally wounded in a shootout with FBI agents who sought his arrest on felony charges. Through its subsidiary American Trust Publications, also headquartered in Chicago, NAIT publishes and distributes the pro-offensive-jihad book "Milestones," by the late Muslim Brotherhood leader Sayyid Qutb of Egypt, Osama bin Laden's spiritual father. "Jihad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make this system of life dominant in the world," the NAIT tome asserts. "Wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth." "Milestones" preaches that Shariah law should be implemented "by force" if Western societies resist the barbaric Islamic code. "Bringing about the enforcement of the Divine Law and the abolition of man-made laws cannot be achieved only through preaching," it says. "When obstacles and practical difficulties are put in its way, it has no recourse but to remove them by force." "Islam has the right to take the initiative," the book claims. "It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions. It is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems." Chillingly, Qutb's strategy dovetails with one outlined in a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood manifesto recently declassified by the Justice Department. It lists NAIT among Brotherhood, or "Ikhwan," front groups participating in a seditious conspiracy of "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within" through a "grand jihad," with the ultimate goal of making Islam "victorious over all religions." The secret manifesto was found in a terrorist suspect's home in Northern Virginia and entered as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial. According to "Muslim Mafia," NAIT was founded in 1973 with massive funding from the Saudis. It was formed as an investment bank for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, acquiring title to more than 300 mosques and Islamic schools in the U.S. Current NAIT Chairman Muzammil Siddiqi appears in secret Brotherhood documents as a high-ranking member of its shura council in America, according to documents cited in "Muslim Mafia." NAIT did not return phone calls seeking comment.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127262

who wants muslims in aussie ?

I didn't realize Muslims were becoming such a powerful force in America. It will be interesting to see what happens if they grow powerful enough to challenge the Jews who are said to control America.

Islam has become a major problem for the whole world, and we really need to think rationally, and dispassionately, about just what is the best way to counter the massive swing toward Islamist extremism that it has undergone in the last 40 years or so.

In doing that, we seriously need to look at the actions of the west, that has exacerbated the situation to the point where previously peaceful, decent, spiritual people, began to accept violence as a legitimate expression of Islamic principles.
Now that only happens when people feel they are threatened themselves, and it seems we have reached the point where the open animosity toward muslims has risen to the point where they can rationalise, and self justify, acts of barbaric violence, perpetrated by Islamist extremists, that previously they would have been repulsed by.
Previously such people would have totally disassociated themselves from condoning such behaviour, while now, they are beginning to accept it as a consequential response to their perception of the self preservation of their religion.

So just how do we contain, or even turnaround, this growing acceptance of the radicalisation of Islam?

I believe we need to start by fearlessly and impartially using the secular laws of our western societies, by actively prosecuting all purveyors of hate speech, from whatever quarter they may rise, be it Islamist, Islamophobe, or Ultra Nationalist Evangelicals, we need to show that "OUR" society is a fair and moral society, and we will uphold it's principles.

We need to show that the agenda is not being set by extremists from any quarter, and once we start to do that, then fair and moderate people from all sides will at least have the option of associating themselves with a system they can confidently support as just and fair.
This may seem insignificant, but I do believe that the erosion of the confidence that people have in their culture, due to actions of extremist politicians, has led to a weakening of our cultural integrity, that is easily exploited, and we need to take action to restore confidence and pride in our systems fairness.
That is something we can do at home, for ourselves, and it is no small thing, but it is just the first step, a step which would create a more cohesive, united society, and also make it a society worthy of respect, and worthy of defending.

The first step is getting our own house in order, and doing that would be great, but even if we do, we will still be confronted with foreign regimes, and religious factions that are so extreme that in their current form, they will always be a threat to all secular societies, no matter how fair and honourable they may be, because of the fact that they are religious fanatics whose goal is the creation of a single worldwide theocracy.

Now the megalomanic idiocy of such a concept is something they will never grasp, so how do we marginalise, then contain, this most extreme element of Islam?
This is the most problematic, because if we interfere in the internal politics of Islam, we merely give the fanatics new grounds to justify their violence against us.
Can we actively promote one branch of Islam and hope that it will do it's own dirty work, and solve the problem for us?
Can we identify and support potential leaders who are moderate and peaceful men who could steer the muslim people away from political jihad and back to individual spiritualism?

It is time for muslims to step up and take responsibility for their own religion, and the actions perpetrated in it's name, and the best we can do is to try and offer support to any men of good faith who take such steps, and try and protect both them, and their message, until the muslim people themselves turn away from violence, and fanatical dreams of worldwide theocracy.

The sad fact is that if Islam does not change it's ways, then we could see a day when Islam is compulsorily excluded from secular democracy's and people will seek extreme actions be taken against it, that would make our recent forays into the middle east seem positively benevolent, by comparison, and no decent person would ever want an outcome like that.
We in the west cannot do it all, and we cannot do it alone, if Islam wants peace, and a place in our society, it must step up and do it's share of the lifting too.
Any people who are praying types, would be well advised to include that to their list, when they next join in prayer.  

mozzaok,

You are in denial. Deep denial about the culpability of nations like the U.S and the U.K in causing all sorts of mischief and chaos and violence around the world (especially the Muslim world). Until you're willing to pull your head out of the sand, and recognise these mistakes, and reverse them, then the problems are going to persist. And threatening to take harsh measures against all Muslims in some form of collective punishment is just ridiculous, and such suggestions really have no place in Australia. They are the thoughts and means which resemble that of Nazism, and of the apartheid of the Zionist state.

YOU are the one who needs to do some reforming, because at present your ideas are just despicable. You need to wake up to the very dangerous and evil outcomes that your ideas present to Australian society and to humanity in general.

Or perhaps one day you'd like to be judged and punished in a collective manner yourself? Because that's the Pandora's box you are opening.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 9^th, 2010 at 7:14pm:

mozzaok, You are in denial. Deep denial about the culpability of nations like the U.S and the U.K in causing all sorts of mischief and chaos and violence around the world (especially the Muslim world). Until you're willing to pull your head out of the sand, and recognise these mistakes, and reverse them, then the problems are going to persist. And threatening to take harsh measures against all Muslims in some form of collective punishment is just ridiculous, and such suggestions really have no place in Australia. They are the thoughts and means which resemble that of Nazism, and of the apartheid of the Zionist state. YOU are the one who needs to do some reforming, because at present your ideas are just despicable. You need to wake up to the very dangerous and evil outcomes that your ideas present to Australian society and to humanity in general. Or perhaps one day you'd like to be judged and punished in a collective manner yourself? Because that's the Pandora's box you are opening.

They obviously had you and your beard in mind, Abu, when they wrote the anti-terrorist white paper and identified the mindset of terrorists:

A distorted narrative
Many distinct terrorist networks with differing and often local objectives share a broadly common set of beliefs that narrowly and simplistically interprets history and current affairs through the lens of the alleged oppression of Muslims, principally by the West. Groups like al-Qa’ida want people to believe:

•the West, led by the United States of America, is engaged in the systematic exploitation and repression of Muslims;
•governments in Muslim majority countries are illegitimate, corrupt and un-Islamic;
•the solution is the removal of Western interference in Muslim majority countries and the establishment of ‘truly Islamic’ systems of governance; and
•it is the religious duty of all Muslims individually to use violence to attack the political, military, religious and cultural enemies of Islam anywhere around the world.

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/counter_terrorism/2_the_threat.cfm

Quote:

look over here, a priest had sex with a boy/man/dog

Soren wrote on Mar 9^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:

Groups like al-Qa’ida want people to believe: •the West, led by the United States of America, is engaged in the systematic exploitation and repression of Muslims;

Just following the doings of the USA through the mainstream news for the past twenty years or so, that view would seem to be quite valid. It might not always be repression of Muslims is the aim of the USA. More likely it is just an accident that Muslims are in the way wherever the USA is trying to grab control of oil or other resources, land for strategic USA bases, or land to give to Zionists for creation and gradual expansion of Israel.



Soren wrote on Mar 9^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:

•the solution is the removal of Western interference in Muslim majority countries...

Sounds to me like a pretty good place to start!

It should surprise nobody that groups like al-Qa’ida think this way because so do I, an Australian all my life and not even a group.

fawkes wrote on Mar 9^th, 2010 at 9:00pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 9th, 2010 at 7:25pm: [quote author=soren2 link=1268086878/0#4 date=1268126741] •the solution is the removal of Western interference in Muslim majority countries... Sounds to me like a pretty good place to start!

Suppose we pull out of Afghanistan. For how many decades would you accept Al-Quaida blowing up our buildings and killing innocent people in 'revenge' for past crimes before you would expect them to get over it?

Quote:

For how many decades would you accept Al-Quaida blowing up our buildings

"our"? Who is the "our" in this sentence fd? If you're an Aussie, then which of "our" buildings did they blow up? Neither AQ nor any Islamic resistance movement even blinked an eye at Australia until Johhny the brown-noser got his nose permanently attached to the rectum of one GWB whilst trying to hang off his coat-tails and made us a target. Australian intelligence analysts and pretty much anyone in the know, all agree that our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq is the only thing that's put us in danger of being a target.

soren,


Quote:

They obviously had you and your beard in mind, Abu, when they wrote the anti-terrorist white paper and identified the mindset of terrorists: A distorted narrative

As fawkes points out, many of those views aren't even restricted to Muslims. Any discerning watcher of world affairs, with a little background in modern history would probably be thinking along the same lines on many of those points too. I know I held pretty much the same views prior to my even knowing anything about Islam.

The last point is just ridiculous though, and obviously thrown in there purely to de-legitimise the perfectly understandable views above it. There are very few Muslims who advocate committing acts of violence, except for those who are under attack themselves, and in occupation zones. In which case the U.N grants them the right to resist that anyway.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 5:54am:

Quote: For how many decades would you accept Al-Quaida blowing up our buildings "our"? Who is the "our" in this sentence fd? If you're an Aussie, then which of "our" buildings did they blow up? Neither AQ nor any Islamic resistance movement even blinked an eye at Australia until Johhny the brown-noser got his nose permanently attached to the rectum of one GWB whilst trying to hang off his coat-tails and made us a target. Australian intelligence analysts and pretty much anyone in the know, all agree that our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq is the only thing that's put us in danger of being a target.

The coalition of the willing. Perhaps you didn't notice, but it was not a reference to past events.

lol, Abu, you may be the first truly funny muslim.

You describe my position as despicable, and if you analyse just why you feel that way, it is because I include Islam, and muslims, as needing to become a part of a solution to bring about peace.
I used the first three quarters of my post discussing how we in the west have contributed to this rise in extremism, and stated that we in the west need to turn that around, a point I would have expected you to agree with, but because I also expect Islam to change as well, I become despicable in the eyes of a "moderate" muslim like yourself.

Unfortunately I fear that Soren's impression of you may be more accurate than mine, and I hate to think that, I have always wanted to see moderate Islam prevail against the insanity of extremists, but finding moderate Islam is becoming somewhat like a unicorn hunt.

The future for us all will be much uglier, if we fail to find that unicorn.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2010 at 9:10pm:

Suppose we pull out of Afghanistan. For how many decades would you accept Al-Quaida blowing up our buildings and killing innocent people in 'revenge' for past crimes before you would expect them to get over it?

Well, you have been blowing up buildings and killing innocent people in Afghanistan for several years now, so it would be reasonable to give Al-Quaida a free hit at you for the same length of time. After that, if you were to deploy all the military forces you bring home from Afghanistan to civil defence within your own borders, you should be able to thwart most attacks aimed against you.  Finally, if you were to try the diplomatic approach you should have tried at the beginning, of acknowledging the validity of the complaints Al-Quaida has made against you and making amends, you might finally bring an end to all hostilities from Al-Quaida.

lmao, written like a thirteen year old who thinks he has just figured it all out.
Grow up Fawkes, just because one side has had right wing ideologues involved does not mean that the opposing side is therefore offering valid decent options, no sane person would ever seek to enable extremist Islam to carry out it's goals.
Can you imagine how long you would last in Iran, if you were offering public complaints about their form of governance?
What Al Quaeda, and other ratbag extremists want is an Iran style theocracy, ruling the whole world, including you, is that something you are comfortable with?
I am not, and never will be.

I mean seriously, before you defend these guys you really should seek to learn what their ultimate aims are, and they are far more sinister than you credit them as being, which does not mean that they are totally wrong on all levels, and that we are totally right, but when both sides are reviewed, on balance, our side is infinitely more desirable.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 6:09am:

soren, Quote: They obviously had you and your beard in mind, Abu, when they wrote the anti-terrorist white paper and identified the mindset of terrorists: A distorted narrative As fawkes points out, many of those views aren't even restricted to Muslims. Any discerning watcher of world affairs, with a little background in modern history would probably be thinking along the same lines on many of those points too. I know I held pretty much the same views prior to my even knowing anything about Islam. The last point is just ridiculous though, and obviously thrown in there purely to de-legitimise the perfectly understandable views above it. There are very few Muslims who advocate committing acts of violence, except for those who are under attack themselves, and in occupation zones. In which case the U.N grants them the right to resist that anyway.

You are all jihadis, it is a fundamental tenet of islam. If you say you are a Muslim you are also saying that you are a jihadi. They are inseparable.

That's the difference between garden variety anti-Americanism or anti-imperailism and Muslims - jihad. Your fundamental, non-negotiable stance, your opening move is jihad.

You don't scare me mozzaok with your fanciful allegations. I have lived through the cold war and remember the same sort of rubbish being published to scare us of "the communists", which all came to nothing.  I suppose you were one of those who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to be deployed against you within 45 minutes?

fawkes - I suppose you were one of the russian leaders who mindlessly signed peace agreements with hitler too?

fawkes wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 10:40am:

You don't scare me mozzaok with your fanciful allegations. I have lived through the cold war and remember the same sort of rubbish being published to scare us of "the communists", which all came to nothing.  I suppose you were one of those who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to be deployed against you within 45 minutes?

So there was never a real threat of a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the West at any time between 1950 and 1989? Stalinism was not a toxic totalitarian ideology?

Aww, you beat me to it Helian.

Just because you lived through the cold war, Fawkes, does not mean that you actually learned anything, obviously. ;)

The naivety which some display, when they suggest that if we just remove all westerners, and all western influences, from what have been traditionally muslim countries, then somehow these dysfunctional places will become Islamic nirvanas, is laughable.

The sectarian violence,(home grown) will remain, the tribal rivalries,(home grown) will remain, the barbaric customs, (home grown) will remain, the mistreatment of women, (home grown) will remain, but most importantly, the extremist Islamists, will also remain.
So unless you have some insight into how you expect such an exodus of western influence, would play out, that no others have been able to predict, feel free to enlighten us.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 11:25am:

The sectarian violence,(home grown) will remain, the tribal rivalries,(home grown) will remain, the barbaric customs, (home grown) will remain, the mistreatment of women, (home grown) will remain, but most importantly, the extremist Islamists, will also remain.

As the list shows, the problems is that there is too little western influence in these countries. I am all for recolonisation.



Murdoch must have been following our little discussion - even he says it:


THE Middle East must open up its markets to foreigners and renounce media censorship if it wants to harness a "powerful wind" of creative energy blowing through the region, Rupert Murdoch says.

Speaking at the inaugural Abu Dhabi Media Summit, the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, parent company of The Australian and The Times, said that the world did not "think of the Middle East when it thinks of creative content".

Even Arab citizens, he said, preferred to watch "Hollywood movies or American television".

mozza,


Quote:

I used the first three quarters of my post discussing how we in the west have contributed to this rise in extremism, and stated that we in the west need to turn that around, a point I would have expected you to agree with

Whilst you may have felt you were making sweeping compromises and radical attempts at "self-criticism" the fact is mozza you deny any culpability of the West is causing these conflicts. You still remain completely blinded and ignorant of the fact that the reason some Islamic militant groups exist is purely as a retaliation to Western hostilities. You might concede that the neo-con nutjobs didn't help things once it got going, but you'll never admit the constant arming of the occupationist state of Israel in Palestine for instance is one of the primary causes of these conflicts. Or that bombing Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. had anything to do with the Muslim militant movements retaliating.

You will never admit the West provoked these conflicts, because it means admitting "Hey maybe the other side had legitimate grievances for doing what they did".

For you that is unthinkable. You will never admit you did wrong. period.

helian,


Quote:

So there was never a real threat of a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the West at any time between 1950 and 1989?

There may well have been, but are you suggesting it was purely from the Soviet Union? Come on.

In fact, the Soviet Union just spent most of that time playing catch up, the "ante" was almost consistently upped each time by the West, not by the USSR.

You've failed miserably on that one.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 12:10pm:

For you that is unthinkable. You will never admit you did wrong. period.

Unlike you,  who is always telling Muslims what they have done wrong and what they should admit as misdeeds.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 12:13pm:

helian, Quote: So there was never a real threat of a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the West at any time between 1950 and 1989? There may well have been, but are you suggesting it was purely from the Soviet Union? Come on. In fact, the Soviet Union just spent most of that time playing catch up, the "ante" was almost consistently upped each time by the West, not by the USSR. You've failed miserably on that one.

Ironic that a religious fundamentalist would find cause to defend the Soviet Union whose command would have seen your position as a capital anathema to its philosophy.

Yes, the Soviet Union played catch-up and what a pity they caught up. The imbalance may well have precipitated a collapse of the Soviet Union even before Stalin's death and Eastern Europe may not have had to endure 40 years of destitution and desolation under the mindless despotism of Soviet leadership.

Quote:

Unlike you,  who is always telling Muslims what they have done wrong and what they should admit as misdeeds.

Well, I am of course biased to my cause. However, the situation is different. Muslims haven't gone around the world committing horrendous acts of violence against innocents, dominating everyone in their path, and then sit scratching their heads wondering why someone flies planes into their buildings.

helian, didn't really defend them. Just pointed out that they weren't really the ones committing all the hostile acts.

Also if I remember correctly, the USA invaded Vietnam and Korea, the USSR never once invaded a single strategic country even remotely close to the borders of the USA.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 2:31pm:

helian, didn't really defend them. Just pointed out that they weren't really the ones committing all the hostile acts. Also if I remember correctly, the USA invaded Vietnam and Korea, the USSR never once invaded a single strategic country even remotely close to the borders of the USA.

The destitution of eastern Europe, the crushing of the Hungarian uprising, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the building of the Berlin wall, the murder of countless numbers of dissidents & etc... Were these not hostile acts?

The installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba? Is Cuba remotely close to the US?

fawkes wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 10:40am:

You don't scare me mozzaok with your fanciful allegations. I have lived through the cold war and remember the same sort of rubbish being published to scare us of "the communists", which all came to nothing.  I suppose you were one of those who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to be deployed against you within 45 minutes?

It came to nothing because people got scared off it. That doesn't mean the threat was not there. There were plenty of people who were willing to impose communism on us against our will. From a historical perspective, large scale communism was a bit of a passing fad, so obviously it looks a bit rediculous once it has passed. Islam has been around for a millenium and it's political decline only started a few centuries back. There is no fundamental reason why it would not re-emerge, except that people of courage make the effort to prevent that from happening. There are still millions of people living uner the constant threat af sharia law.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

fawkes wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 8:34am:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2010 at 9:10pm: Suppose we pull out of Afghanistan. For how many decades would you accept Al-Quaida blowing up our buildings and killing innocent people in 'revenge' for past crimes before you would expect them to get over it? Well, you have been blowing up buildings and killing innocent people in Afghanistan for several years now, so it would be reasonable to give Al-Quaida a free hit at you for the same length of time. After that, if you were to deploy all the military forces you bring home from Afghanistan to civil defence within your own borders, you should be able to thwart most attacks aimed against you.  Finally, if you were to try the diplomatic approach you should have tried at the beginning, of acknowledging the validity of the complaints Al-Quaida has made against you and making amends, you might finally bring an end to all hostilities from Al-Quaida.

I thought as much. You want to bring a war onto Australian soil and would happily accept all that entails. No thanks. The time for diplomacy ended with 9/11. Sometimes it is nothing more than naive to expect to be able to reason with some groups.

Quote:

Muslims haven't gone around the world committing horrendous acts of violence against innocents, dominating everyone in their path

;D ;D ;D They were freeing the infidels, right Abu?

fawkes wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 8:34am:

Well, you have been blowing up buildings and killing innocent people in Afghanistan for several years now

And do you recall what brought that about?

mozzaok wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 11:25am:

The sectarian violence,(home grown) will remain, the tribal rivalries,(home grown) will remain, the barbaric customs, (home grown) will remain, the mistreatment of women, (home grown) will remain, but most importantly, the extremist Islamists, will also remain.

You are probably correct, they will remain, in their own countries, where they would not bother us if we didn't bother them. You may not like the ways they live, but it's about time someone told you it's none of your business. We did some horrible things as we evolved from cave men (we still do actually), so why not leave others to evolve in their own good time?

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:

You want to bring a war onto Australian soil and would happily accept all that entails.

If it comes freediver, it will be you and your sort who invited it. You're not afraid of facing your comeuppance, are you?

It's actually happening, Reg, it's actually happening. All you have to do is draw a cartoon in a Lutheran country and they will be after you, plotting murder.

A Pennsylvania woman known to authorities as "JihadJane" has been charged in federal court with using the Internet to recruit jihadist fighters to carry out murders and violent attacks overseas.

The woman, Colleen R. LaRose, was charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, making false statements to a government official and attempted identity theft, according to the indictment, unsealed Monday.

Sources tell Fox News the "Swedish citizen" who "JihadJane" was allegedly looking to kill is Lars Vilks, who drew one of the controversial Prophet Muhammad cartoons. There was a series of arrests in Ireland earlier Tuesday that are reportedly connected to LaRose's case.

In September of 2007 Al Qaeda offered a bounty for the murder of Viks.

LaRose and five unindicted co-conspirators are accused of recruiting men to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe and of recruiting women who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe for similar missions.


The accused co-conspirators are located in South Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the United States.

"Today's indictment ... underscores the evolving nature of the threat we face," said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

In June 2008, LaRose posted a comment on YouTube under the username "JihadJane," stating that she is "desperate to do something somehow to help" the suffering Muslim people, according to the indictment.

She was also know to authorities as "Fatima LaRose." The indictment describes LaRose as in her 40s.

Court documents show LaRose was first arrested by federal authorities on Oct. 16, 2009, for allegedly trying to "transfer" a stolen passport.

The indictment accuses the American-born LaRose and her unindicted co-conspirators of using the Internet to establish relationships with one another and to communicate their plans, which included martyring themselves, soliciting funds for terrorists, soliciting passports and avoiding travel restrictions, through the collection of passports and through marriage, according to a government release.

LaRose, who lives in Montgomery County, Pa., received a direct order to kill someone in Sweden, and to do so in a way that would frighten "the whole Kufar [non-believer] world," according to the indictment.

It states that LaRose agreed to carry out her murder assignment, and that she and her co-conspirators discussed that her appearance and American citizenship would help her blend.

According to the indictment, LaRose traveled to Europe and tracked her intended target online, but it isn't clear whether she carried out the mission...


We kill terrorists, they are after cartoonists and other similar combatants of the mind. But you, of course will not see the difference. That would mean taking your on side. And you will not be so slavish or simplistic as to fall for something so obvious. There's gotta be a catch, you gotta take the side of the fellows who hold you in utter contempt as a kuffr.

fawkes wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 10:15pm:

mozzaok wrote on Mar 10th, 2010 at 11:25am: The sectarian violence,(home grown) will remain, the tribal rivalries,(home grown) will remain, the barbaric customs, (home grown) will remain, the mistreatment of women, (home grown) will remain, but most importantly, the extremist Islamists, will also remain. You are probably correct, they will remain, in their own countries, where they would not bother us if we didn't bother them. You may not like the ways they live, but it's about time someone told you it's none of your business. We did some horrible things as we evolved from cave men (we still do actually), so why not leave others to evolve in their own good time?

You are so far away from getting it Fawkes, that it is almost funny.
The guys who started this whole Islamist garbage did so in reaction to western "culture", not western "imperialism", the local people were starting to enjoy the benefits that came from modernisation, they liked the idea of having a say in their own lives, but the extremist crackpots wedded to fundamentalist Islam could not handle that at all, and sought to crush any free thought in Islamic culture, and decided they needed to demonise all western culture to acvhieve that end.

They are not content to keep their foul actions, which we have plainly seen perpetrated by the likes of the Taliban, and the Iranian despots, contained to their own lands.
Unfortunately, decent folk all over the world, who despise totalitarianism wherever it may rear it's ugly face, are confronted with the growing influx of muslims into western countries, shamelessly demanding their hosts abrogate their own standards in favour of the medieval mindset of mad mullahs.
Now these decent people speak out against the excesses of these lunatic regimes, as well as the excesses of their own governments, and cultures, where appropriate, yet these muslim migrants have the temerity to demand we abrogate our own culture, in favour of outdated and barbaric Islamic ideology, so that they can practice inappropriate behaviours like polygamy, and child marriage, along with the usual raft of anachronistic behaviours.

Go to europe where these extremists have already successfully coeced local authoritiies into granting aspects of sharia law to be practiced, instead of just respecting the laws and customs, as they promised when moving to the countries they chose to settle in.
Go and witness their uncompromising assault on western ideals, and values, and then tell me that they just want to be free to follow their beliefs in their own countries.
Most objective people recognise that for the open deceit that it is.

The fact of the matter is that muslims "actively" seek to have sharia law implemented in every nation on earth, and they do not mind in the least if they have to use violene to achieve that goal.

Even Abu, an aussie who converted to Islam is committed to seeing our way of life overturned in favour of his adopted religion's strict sharia principles.

So just how you see those facts fitting in with the fantasy being peddled, that if muslims are just left to their own devices, they will somehow magically jettison a cornerstone of their ideology, the imposition of a global caliphate, is one proposition you will need to convince me of, with far better arguments than any I have seen so far, from you or anyone else.

Just to show I am not totally without empathy for muslims, I will post a little cartoon that Abu may enjoy.

---

There will come a day when Muslims wake to the realisation that inflicting death in the name of Allah does not ennoble Islam but instead consigns it to the dust heap of morally and politically bankrupt ideology.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:

They are not content to keep their foul actions, which we have plainly seen perpetrated by the likes of the Taliban, and the Iranian despots, contained to their own lands.

So which of them have had major military forces rampaging around in countries half a world away from their homelands, creating death and destruction for something approaching 10 years?


mozzaok wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:

Unfortunately, decent folk all over the world, who despise totalitarianism wherever it may rear it's ugly face, are confronted with the growing influx of muslims into western countries

Why let them in then, if they are so bad?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 11:53pm:

There will come a day when Muslims wake to the realisation that inflicting death in the name of Allah does not ennoble Islam but instead consigns it to the dust heap of morally and politically bankrupt ideology.

The deaths they inflict would bring them less condemnation if they were better targetted. I have never understood why they have done so much mass bombing of civilians instead of assassinating a few of the political leaders who cause them so much trouble. Imagine how different the world might be if they had taken out George dubbya Bush and Tony Blair when they were putting together their coalition of the killing.

fawkes wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 9:00am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 10th, 2010 at 11:53pm: There will come a day when Muslims wake to the realisation that inflicting death in the name of Allah does not ennoble Islam but instead consigns it to the dust heap of morally and politically bankrupt ideology. The deaths they inflict would bring them less condemnation if they were better targetted. I have never understood why they have done so much mass bombing of civilians instead of assassinating a few of the political leaders who cause them so much trouble. Imagine how different the world might be if they had taken out George dubbya Bush and Tony Blair when they were putting together their coalition of the killing.

::)

As if the reasons for this conflict existed only in the minds of one American President and a British Prime Minister.

How different would the world be after the murder of two of the most important Western political figures? Indescribably worse for Muslims and Islam than it would be today.  

Mozza,


Quote:

The guys who started this whole Islamist garbage did so in reaction to western "culture", not western "imperialism"

Until you wake up to this reality (and the rest of those still deluded in the West), then this conflict is going to keep growing. I know it's harder for you to take responsibility for the fact Western imperialism caused it, but it's more accurate and is the only way the situation is going to change any time soon.

The only beef Muslims have with Western culture is when it comes imposed alongside the imperialism as it's compliment.

You've bought into Bush's dumbed down explanations that it's because they hate your freedoms and your way of life. I would've thought you'd at least have seen through that one.


Quote:

Even Abu, an aussie who converted to Islam is committed to seeing our way of life overturned in favour of his adopted religion's strict sharia principles.

I'd like to see more Aussies become Muslim, of course, just as I'm sure a convert to Mormonism or JW would like to see the same for his adopted religion. That's really not all that strange.


Quote:

Just to show I am not totally without empathy for muslims, I will post a little cartoon that Abu may enjoy.

Quite amusing, and sadly true. But what's more amusing mozza is that you post it in the same post in which you so blindly buy into Bush's explanations and mantras.

fawkes,


Quote:

The deaths they inflict would bring them less condemnation if they were better targetted. I have never understood why they have done so much mass bombing of civilians instead of assassinating a few of the political leaders who cause them so much trouble.

I think some groups have just decided that "They do that to our civilians, so it's only fair to give them a taste of their own medicine". Doesn't make it right, but there's some quite obvious logic behind it.

The West are the ones who pioneered the whole idea that if you target the civilian population, and make them suffer, then they might overthrow or at least stop supporting the enemies, and then it's easier to take them out. They did this in the first Iraq war and the sanctions that followed in which they clearly stated that the Iraqi people will now want to rise up against Saddam due to the hardship he's put them under. The Zionists do it regularly in occupied Palestine, this is the whole rationale behind starving the Gazans into dropping their support for Hamas, and it's being used in Afghanistan and Iraq today where they hassle and target civilians and then inform them it's because of the Talibaan, and if they stop supporting them, then they won't get hassled. They imprison people for long periods of time, torture them, torture their family members etc. in order to "enact" such change in the population.

AQ learnt from the best...

The ironic thing is, the West package this strategy as "Winning the hearts and minds", when it does the complete opposite.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 10:00am:

fawkes, Quote: The deaths they inflict would bring them less condemnation if they were better targetted. I have never understood why they have done so much mass bombing of civilians instead of assassinating a few of the political leaders who cause them so much trouble. I think some groups have just decided that "They do that to our civilians, so it's only fair to give them a taste of their own medicine". Doesn't make it right, but there's some quite obvious logic behind it.

There's a corollary to that cold logic. If you set out to play dog eat dog, you'd better make sure you've got a really big dog.

helian, I didn't state the logic is necessarily good logic, but there's logic to it. It doesn't seem to have just been done randomly or negligently.

Besides, it's not always the biggest dog that wins.

Rome was sacked by the Goths and Baghdad by the Mongols.. Both ragtag nomads who really seemed like no threat to the mighty empires they were to vanquish.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 10:30am:

helian, I didn't state the logic is necessarily good logic

Neither did I.


abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 10:30am:

Besides, it's not always the biggest dog that wins. Rome was sacked by the Goths and Baghdad by the Mongols.. Both ragtag nomads who really seemed like no threat to the mighty empires they were to vanquish.

How often do you think the little dog eats the bigger dog? A couple of times a millennium doesn't seem like great odds and not that Goths and Mongols improved civilisation even remotely to any degree than that of their enemies.

Interesting though that you missed the most important underdog-beats-overdog in relatively recent history - the American Revolution.  ;)

The day you become an expert on Jihad, Soren, is the day I'll read Kierkergard. In Danish.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 9:11am:

As if the reasons for this conflict existed only in the minds of one American President and a British Prime Minister.

Are you suggesting there were other sinister minds behind Bush and Blair, driving them to organize the war?  Who were they? USA military leaders? The Zionists of Israel? Please tell us!

You won't be surprised that I supported both wars. I don't mean to imply that Bush and Blair acted on my advice or were indulging my  sentiments. But it is possible for reasonable people to come to the conlusion that it is better to fight them there than here (to condense it into a single dot point.)

But then again, I am pro-Israel, so maybe it is just evil people, after all, who were in favour. ANd yes, my type has a grossly disproportionate say in these things as our voice is greater than our numbers would ordinarily suppose. That's because we have to earn those fat monthly cheques from Big Oil, Big Weapon -all financed, of course, by Big Matzo - the jooos, as every scoolboy knows.

fawkes wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 10:22pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2010 at 7:25pm: You want to bring a war onto Australian soil and would happily accept all that entails. If it comes freediver, it will be you and your sort who invited it. You're not afraid of facing your comeuppance, are you?

Weren't you just saying you would be happy for Al Quaida to blow up our buildings and kill innocent people for a few years to appease them?

What would your plan be for after that? They would go home and leave us alone?

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 8:25pm:

Weren't you just saying you would be happy for Al Quaida to blow up our buildings and kill innocent people for a few years to appease them?

Unless you can show somewhere where I wrote that I will feel justified in thinking you are not worth replying to.

fawkes, you'll find this is fd's favourite pastime. He has an unhealthy love of trying to cram his own twisted words into the oral orifices of others.

Quote:

But it is possible for reasonable people to come to the conlusion that it is better to fight them there than here (to condense it into a single dot point.)

You forgot to add all the usual emotive tripe about the "men and women of our emergency services having to fight them on our streets".

The fact you're just regurgitating Bush's mindless mantras isn't a very good reflection on you soren.

Here you go fawkes - from your own mouth.


fawkes wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 8:34am:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2010 at 9:10pm: Suppose we pull out of Afghanistan. For how many decades would you accept Al-Quaida blowing up our buildings and killing innocent people in 'revenge' for past crimes before you would expect them to get over it? Well, you have been blowing up buildings and killing innocent people in Afghanistan for several years now, so it would be reasonable to give Al-Quaida a free hit at you for the same length of time. After that, if you were to deploy all the military forces you bring home from Afghanistan to civil defence within your own borders, you should be able to thwart most attacks aimed against you.  Finally, if you were to try the diplomatic approach you should have tried at the beginning, of acknowledging the validity of the complaints Al-Quaida has made against you and making amends, you might finally bring an end to all hostilities from Al-Quaida.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 9:11pm:

Quote: But it is possible for reasonable people to come to the conlusion that it is better to fight them there than here (to condense it into a single dot point.) You forgot to add all the usual emotive tripe about the "men and women of our emergency services having to fight them on our streets". The fact you're just regurgitating Bush's mindless mantras isn't a very good reflection on you soren.

A few years after Bush's sun settled, and over a year after he left office, it remains clear  and is getting clearer by the day that what we have here is another pushback against Islam, the first one being the Crusades.
Despite the popular myth, the Crusades were in response to ongoing bloody war on the ever expanding borders of Islam. Islam is once again a motivator of Muslims, and so Muslims, once again are carrying our razzias (Arabic for terrorist attacks) against settled people.
Islam is the enemy of every people it comes into contact with. Every single one. It is capable of peaceful coexitence only while it is under the thumb. It cannot be friends with anyone because of its fundamental tenets. It can only appear so, while biding its time. Always. Any smiles are only temporary and in the service of its ultimate aim of conversion or subjugation.

So Bush is neither here nor there. If you take a view that is a bit longer than the American electoral cycle, you realise that Islam IS waging a religious war against the west, against buddhists (Thailand) against Hindus, Chinese, and first and foremost against joo. Always the joos. Even in Bombay, the one rabbi and his family. Islam is the perennial Johnny from On the Waterfront:
What're you rebelling against, Johnny?
Johnny: Whaddya got?

The half-Muslim O'bama would have ended the wars if they were only about Bush's 'mindless mantras'. They aren't, of course. Everyone knows it. His initial characterisation of the conflict as Crusade (hastily withdrawn out of miplaced sensitivity) was correct. Every conflict with Islam is a religious conflict. That is the only conflict islam can conceive of.

So cut the old Bush-bashing, it was meaningless even when he was in office.

So let me get a bit of a grip on your delusional fantasies there soren.

Obama is half-muslim, and he's waging war against Muslims, yet he's committing a "stealth jihad" on the side too right?

And Muslims everywhere are trying to kill every Jew they can find, and always have been right? Nevermind the 1350 years of SHARIAH RULED history during which Jews always preferred living under Islam to Christianity, and would escape to Muslim lands any time they could...

I guess I must've missed all those thousands of Palestinians who went to Eastern Europe, England, U.S, Russia etc. in the early part of the 20th. century, just so they could attack Jews...

fawkes wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 5:59pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 11th, 2010 at 9:11am: As if the reasons for this conflict existed only in the minds of one American President and a British Prime Minister. Are you suggesting there were other sinister minds behind Bush and Blair, driving them to organize the war?  Who were they? USA military leaders? The Zionists of Israel? Please tell us!

We could start with recent history, such as Saddam Hussein's gross misinterpretation of US and European attitude towards his, at the time, intended annexation of Kuwait.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 11:04pm:

And Muslims everywhere are trying to kill every Jew they can find, and always have been right? Nevermind the 1350 years of SHARIAH RULED history during which Jews always preferred living under Islam to Christianity, and would escape to Muslim lands any time they could...

Very well, why complain about Zionism then? Herzl and his buddies were just escaping Europe to an obscure, stony corner of the benign Caliphate.  See? You are right!

back to the topic.

Is this a new thing, muzzies wanting to kill kafirs ?
is it in your warped violent belief?


Quote:

Because Islam is all-encompassing, Maududi believed that the Islamic state should not be limited to just the "homeland of Islam". It is for all the world. 'Jihad' should be used to eliminate un-Islamic rule and establish this Islamic state: Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.[14] He explained that jihad was not only combat for God but all effort that helped those waging combat (Qita'al): “In the jihad in the way of Allah, active combat is not always the role on the battlefield, nor can everyone fight in the front line. Just for one single battle preparations have often to be made for decades on end and the plans deeply laid, and while only some thousands fight in the front line there are behind them millions engaged in various tasks which, though small themselves, contribute directly to the supreme effort.”[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abul_Ala_Maududi

and is this why the free world should evict you all from our lands ?

Our Government doesn’t seem to see any danger, or politicians know the issue is too difficult.

Soren wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 7:48pm:

But it is possible for reasonable people to come to the conclusion that it is better to fight them there than here (to condense it into a single dot point.)

Are such people "reasonable", or actually extremely selfish and disregarding of fairness and the wellbeing of others?

Of course, if you have the world's most threatening military force at your disposal, it will be less dangerous to you to let it rampage through some other country rather than have it operating in your streets and neighbourhood. Mind you, the rhetoric would still be just as meaningless. As the military blows up your fellow citizens and their houses it will say it is trying to defend you. In other countries their claim is to be winning hearts and minds whilst bringing demahcracy!  We all know that military forces wreck civilization and innocent civilians wherever they are deployed, so I ask how "reasonable" is it to send death and destruction to the innocents of another country halfway around the world, just so a bunch of warmongering cowards can feel safe at home?

Yes, yes, yes, our side is alway worse than the enemy, we live under the worst regime...


ZZZzzzzzzzz...........

*imagines soren stuffing his fingers in his ears as he rattled that off*

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 9:32am:

*imagines soren stuffing his fingers in his ears as he rattled that off*

talking about yourself in the third person is very adolescent.

well it's certainly a cut above your infantile antics.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 14^th, 2010 at 5:59pm:

well it's certainly a cut above your infantile antics.

;D ;D ;D

What are you? A thirteen year old girl??