Tag Archive for: 9/11

Outrage: Obama White House tells WWII vets to get over ‘feeling embittered’ over Pearl Harbor

Yesterday, Josh Earnest, outgoing Obama White House spokesperson, had the effrontery at a press conference to accuse the few survivors and their generations of families and WWII vets  to get over their being  ‘embittered’ over the Japanese sneak attack that resulted in  2,117 dead and 960 missing and presumed dead  on the morning of Sunday, December 7, 1941.  Earnest apparently conveyed the President’s concern over gestures towards the visit by Japanese Premier Abe who will accompany Obama paying a visit to the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii signifying “comfort” but no apologies on behalf of all Japanese citizens on the 75th commemoration. Abe is the first Japanese Prime Minister to make such a visit in memoriam to the victims of the Pearl Harbor attack. The President and Premier Abe will be holding their last summit before the President’s final term in office ends.

That dastardly attack is forever engraved in American history of WWII as “the day that will live in infamy” intoned by FDR at the rostrum of a joint session of Congress on Monday, December 8th when he declared War against the forces of Imperial Japan.

The toll at Pearl Harbor stood until the morning of 9/11 when 15 Saudi, Egyptian and Yemeni Islamikaze of Al Qaeda seized commercial air flights at Boston’s Logan Airport, Newark International Airport and Dulles International Airport in Virginia destroying the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan, taking out a section of the Pentagon and being overcome by the heroic passengers on board Flight 93 forcing it to crash in a field in southwestern Pennsylvania. The sneak attack of 9/11, what we and other’s have called the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century  killed more than 2,996 injured 6,000 others.

There is something more productive that the Obama White could do in the remaining weeks of its second and final term in office. They could right a wrong done to the Pacific Fleet commander, Admiral Husband Kimmel and U.S. Army, Lt. General Walter Short. They were relieved of commands, demoted one star each, and falsely accused of incompetence that day. Reinstating their full ranks along with absolving them of unfounded accusations with apologies to their families and service colleagues is long overdue.

The story that emerged is one of slipshod communications by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and protection of the breaking of the Japanese Diplomatic and Naval codes by the US in the 1930’s. Monitoring of those reports revealed the Japanese Imperial government intent that upon the breakdown of oil boycott negotiations with the FDR Administration, Japan would declare war and unleash the attack.  The CNO archives revealed a memo on December 4, 1941 revealing their Japanese intent but the Pacific fleet command was belatedly alerted.  Earlier Admiral Kimmel had made repeated requests for long range reconnaissance aircraft that might have detected the fleet of six carriers approaching the Hawaiian Islands under radio silence. Then there was the confusion over radar signals that morning, given the simultaneous arrival of a squadron of B-17s from the West Coast. 353 torpedo, dive bombers and fighters swept in from the north of Oahu to unleash their attack and destruction at Hickham Field, Schofield Barracks and scuttling of the Pacific fleet inflicted grievous harm on sailors, soldiers, airmen, nurses and civilians.

Naval Marshal General Isoroku Yamamato graduate of the US Naval War College and Harvard University, who planned, assembled and executed  the surprise attack was famously quoted on January 9, 1942 saying:

“A military man can scarcely pride himself on having ‘smitten a sleeping enemy’; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack.”

That successful counterattack came six months later in the Battle of Midway, when Naval intelligence, and a decision by Pacific Commander Admiral Nimitz, scored a major victory sinking four of the six carriers involved in the Pearl Harbor attack- the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu. Yamamoto was eventually targeted by Naval intelligence and his Japanese command aircraft and escort fighters were ambushed in Operation Vengeance by a USAAF squadron of P-38 “lightnings” on April 18, 1943, over Buin, Papua, New Guinea.

There are two engrossing PBS documentaries that will reprise on December 7, 2016, about battleships attacked 75 years ago on December 7, 1941.  One is a poignant story about the return of remains to the grandchildren for closure and interment of a young ensign who served on board the Oklahoma, a Naval Academy grad and communications officer, who perished that day.  The PBS documentary includes surviving eye witness testimony.

Watch: “Pearl Harbor USS Oklahoma Final Story.”

The second documentary is an amazing video of a visit paid to the Arizona by expert scuba divers and underwater video personnel from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Research Center in Massachusetts and US Park Service experts, watched by a survivor of the Arizona bombing who was horribly burned that day

Watch: “Into the Arizona.”

Thus, the Obama White House warning to Pearl Harbor survivors their generations of families and all WW II veterans falsely accused of “feeling embittered” deserve an apology.  In sharp contrast they recognize closure on their pain of loss from the visit of Japanese Premier Abe and his “comfort’ for the victims  on this 75th  commemoration of Pearl Harbor.

Clinton, Bush Implicated in Covering Up Saudi Terror in U.S.

The recently-declassified pages of the 9/11 report implicated both administrations, saying they ignored the Saudi network in the U.S.

The 28 pages of the recently-declassified report on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack not only implicated the Saudi government and its network on U.S. soil, it implicates the Clinton and Bush Administrations in covering up that network and stopping the FBI from protecting America from it.

Page 11 states:

“Prior to September 11th, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative [censored]…Saudi nationals in the United States due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American ‘ally.’…A representative of the FBI’s [censored] testified in closed hearings that, prior to September 11th, the FBI received ‘no reporting from any member of the Intelligence Community’ that there is a [censored] presence in the United States.”

The censoring of the documents leaves us to wonder what specific terror-related presence the documents are referring to, but it is very clear that it is a network linked to the Saudi government and insufficient investigative resources were allotted for it because of those linkages.

Repeat: A terrorist network threatening Americans was “apparently” not properly addressed because it wasn’t worth offending the government of Saudi Arabia, even though the documents say the Saudi government was, as one veteran FBI agent was quoted as saying, “useless and obstructionist” on counter-terrorism.

The scandalous revelations could impact the presidential campaign because the Clinton Administration had eight years to address this Saudi network in America.

The Bush Administration was in office for only 9 months, but cannot be absolved of blame. The files do not indicate that any change in direction was ordered before the attacks and it chose to classify the pages exposing the Saudis in the 2002 report.

The Bush Administration also opted not to blacklist two terror-tied organizations with strong Saudi ties: Muslim World League and International Islamic Relief Organization. The former also has strong links to Huma Abedin and her family, one of the closest advisers to Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps that decision has something to do with the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. at the time, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was so close to the Bush family that he was nicknamed “Bandar Bush.”

It turns out “Bandar Bush” and his wife were up to their ears in terrorist activity. This includes the FBI finding copies of checks from February 1999 to May 2002 showing payments of $74,000 from his wife to the wife of one of the Saudi intelligence officers linked to the 9/11 hijackers for “nursing services.”

As you probably assumed, the FBI found no evidence that these services were actually rendered.

An unlisted phone number to the Colorado-based company that handled the affairs of “Bandar Bush” was found in the possession of Abu Zubaydah, one of the most senior Al-Qaeda leaders at the time. The documents contain much more than that to show that this “moderate” was intricately involved in the Saudi-backed jihadist network.

Documents obtained by the Clarion Project show that President Bush was actually scheduled to meet with representatives from the Saudi-linked Muslim Brotherhood network on the very day of the attacks, September 11, 2001. This was the fruition of the Republican Party and Bush presidential campaign’s embrace of Islamists, many of whom belonged to the Saudi-backed Brotherhood network.

The relationship continued after the 9/11 attacks, but frayed as some of those same Islamists faced investigations and prosecutions.

The Saudi regime is known as one of the most prolific influence-peddlers. Former CIA case officer Robert Baer, wrote in his bookSleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold its Soul for Saudi Crude:

“Saudi money also seeped into the bureaucracy. Any Washington bureaucrat with a room-temperature IQ knows that if he stays on the right side of the kingdom, one way or another, he’ll be able to finagle his way to feed at the Saudi trough. A consulting contract with Aramco, a chair at American University, a job with Lockheed—it doesn’t matter.

There’s hardly a living former assistant secretary of state for the Near East, CIA director, White House staffer, or member of Congress who hasn’t ended up on the Saudi payroll in one way or another, or so it sometimes seems. With this kind of money waiting out there, of course Washington’s bureaucrats don’t have the backbone to take on Saudi Arabia.”

A search of the Foreign Agents Registration Act website shows 14 active foreign agents of Saudi Arabia, including the Podesta Group. It is led by a major Democratic Party financier who is the brother of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager. The group is paid $140,00 per month by the Saudis.

In his Farewell Address, President George Washington repeatedly urged Americans to be on guard against this type of activity, saying “foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

The “spirit of party,” Washington warned, “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

Every American should be reminded of his words in light of the newly-released documents.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Baton Rouge Cop-Killer Linked to Nation of Islam

Headlines Misleading Describing Declassified Pages of 9/11 Report

Declassified Pages Link Muslim Brotherhood to 9/11 Network

CAIR Objects to Billboards by Muslims to Report Suspicions

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of former presidents Bill Clinton (L) and George W. Bush. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Confirmed: Top Saudi Officials Aided the 9/11 Jihad Plot

The 28-page section of the 9/11 report detailing Saudi involvement in the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks have finally been released (albeit with substantial portions still redacted), and it is now clear why one President who held hands with the Saudi King and another who bowed to him worked so hard all these years to keep these pages secret: they confirm that the 9/11 jihad murderers received significant help from people at the highest levels of the Saudi government.

Obama-Bows

President Obama bowing to Saudi royalty.

The report states that Omar al-Bayoumi, who “may be a Saudi intelligence officer,” gave “substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mindhar and Nawaf al-Hamzi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000. Al-Bayoumi met the hijackers at a public place shortly after his meeting with an individual at the Saudi consulate.” Around the same time, al-Bayoumi “had extensive contact with Saudi Government establishments in the United States and received financial support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense.” That company “reportedly had ties to Usama bin Ladin and al-Qa’ida.”

Another possible Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, who “has many ties to the Saudi government” and was also a supporter of Osama bin Laden, boasted that he did more for al-Mindhar and al-Hamzi than al-Bayoumi did. He also “reportedly received funding and possibly a fake passport from Saudi government officials.” The report says that at one point, “a member of the Saudi Royal Family provided Bassnan with a significant amount of cash,” and that “he and his wife have received financial support from the Saudi ambassador to the United States and his wife.” That ambassador was Prince Bandar, about whom the New York Times later noted: “No foreign diplomat has been closer or had more access to President Bush, his family and his administration than the magnetic and fabulously wealthy Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia.”

Then there was Shaykh al-Thumairy, “an accredited diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles and one of the ‘imams’ at the King Fahad mosque in Culver City, California,” who also “may have been in contact” with al-Mindhar and al-Hamzi.

bush-holds-hands-saudi-ap-gerald-herbert

President Bush holding hands with Saudi royalty. Photo: AP

Saleh al-Hussayen, “reportedly a Saudi Interior Ministry official, stayed at the same hotel in Herndon, Virginia where al-Hazmi was staying. While al-Hussayen claimed after September 11 not to know the hijackers, FBI agents believed he was being deceptive. He was able to depart the United States despite FBI efforts to locate and re-interview him.” Who got him out of the country?

There is much more. The report redacts the name of “another Saudi national with close ties to the Saudi Royal Family,” but notes that he “is the subject of FBI counterterrorism investigations and reportedly was checking security at the United States’ southwest border in 1999 and discussing the possibility of infiltrating individuals into the United States.” There is no telling who this could have been, but Prince Bandar’s unlisted phone number turned up in a phone book of Abu Zubaida, “a senior al-Qa’ida operative captured in Pakistan in March 2002.” Abu Zubaida also had the number of “a bodyguard at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC.”

The report also mentions a CIA memorandum that “discusses alleged financial connections between the September 11 hijackers, Saudi Government officials, and members of the Saudi Royal Family. This memorandum was passed on to an FBI investigator; yet “despite the clear national implications of the CIA memorandum, the FBI agent included the memorandum in an individual case file and did not forward it to FBI Headquarters.” Why?

There is still more, and with this much smoke, there is almost certainly fire: the Saudi connection to 9/11 goes to the highest levels of the Saudi government. And as I detail in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, a U.S. District Judge ruled in 2011 that the Islamic Republic of Iran was liable for damages to 9/11 families because of Iran’s role in facilitating the 9/11 attacks. The judge found that Iran and its proxy Hizballah had cooperated and collaborated with al-Qaeda before 9/11 in planning the attacks, and continued that cooperation after the attacks.

After 9/11, the U.S. declared war on terror and entered Iraq and Afghanistan. But if Bush had really been serious about attacking jihad terror at its root, he would have invaded Saudi Arabia and Iran instead. Under Obama, the betrayal has gotten exponentially worse. There needs to be a full Congressional investigation now into why these 28 pages were kept secret for so long, with those responsible punished accordingly. And above all, the next American administration must make a searching reevaluation of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and stop treating enemies as allies.

Commentary on the Saudi Situation

Since 9/11, the terms of our relationship with Saudi Arabia have been defined by the Saudis, not by the U.S.

To gain their support in the ‘War on Terror,’ one of the first post-9/11 compromises America made with the Saudis was to redact the 28 pages in the 9/11 Commission Report, thus shielding and/or exonerating them from any involvement or responsibility.

A second compromise we made with our Wahabbi partners in peace was to ignore their decades-long role in the funding and support of thousands of pro-Jihad Madrassas throughout the Eastern Hemisphere.

Nor should we overlook Saudi Arabia’s ongoing support of Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood family member and Globally Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization since 1997. On July 16, 2015, King Salman of Saudi Arabia met with top Hamas leaders, including Qatar resident and political leader Khaled Meshal, thus publicly revealing his willingness to work with known Islamist terrorist organizations.

According to the Saudi royal family, the meeting reflected King Salman’s determination to rally the Arab world against Iran, as Iran becomes empowered by its “deal with Western powers to lift economic sanctions in exchange for limits on its nuclear program.”

So, as a consequence of the Iran Deal, we are now seeing a revived Saudi-Sunni-Hamas alliance

The one-sided quid pro quo arrangement between America and Saudi Arabia is remarkably similar to the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between Turkey and Europe (and the West), to overlook the Armenian Genocide, for the sake of peace, and political and economic stability.

In fact, President Obama reinforced this point on April 19, 2016, when he stated: “A country with a modern and large economy like Saudi Arabia would not benefit from a destabilized global financial market, and neither would the United States.”

To reiterate this response, Josh Earnest, Assistant to the President and Press Secretary in the White House Office of Communications, stressed that the administration’s concerns about the pending Congressional legislation (allowing U.S. citizens to sue the Saudi government for their possible part in 9/11), were not just about Saudi Arabia.

On April 15, 2016 (‘Tax Day’), he said “The concern that we have is simply this: It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he said.

More ominously, Mr. Earnest asserted that “The whole notion of sovereign immunity is at stake.” If we pause and explore what this revealing statement actually means, we might easily come to the conclusion that no country on earth will ever be held accountable for supporting terrorist attacks and/or regional wars, simply because one country’s terrorist is another country’s freedom fighter.

Ironically, the first reaction by the Saudis to the pending legislation and simultaneous possible release of the redacted 28 pages was to threaten the U.S. with an economic assault.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, personally informed Washington in March 2016 that “Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.”

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the administration has been aggressively lobbying against the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) bill, which is sponsored by a bipartisan group of 16 US senators who are attempting to curtail the ability of countries to invoke sovereign immunity in lawsuits accusing them of supporting terrorism.

Specifically, this effort is move designed to clear the way for U.S. citizens seek legal remedy for  Saudi Arabia’s alleged complicity in the 9/11 terror attacks.

As cited here, on Thursday, April 14, 2016, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) reintroduced JASTA, which is the third time the bill has been submitted since 2011. The Senate passed it last December, but it stalled in the House.

There is hope that the time has finally come for Congress to approve it. The latest version is co-sponsored by 14 other senators, including Al Franken (D-MN), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Finally, the families of 9/11 victims remain infuriated by the Obama administration, which has consistently sided with the kingdom and thwarted efforts to discover the truth about the role Saudi officials may have played in the attacks 15 years ago.

“It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,” said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center, and who is part of a group of victims’ family members pushing for the legislation.

At least 14 members of the House also agree with Ms. Kleinberg. On January 13, 2016, they introduced House Resolution 588, entitled Condemning and Censuring President Barack Obama, which “Censures and condemns President Barack Obama for having willfully disregarded the President’s constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief of the United States through his continued failed lack of foreign affairs strategy, failure to follow the advice of military and intelligence advisors, and failed national security policy.”

To conclude, President Obama landed in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, April 20, in the midst of a swirling storm of controversy and confusing, contradictory policies and allegiances. The world will be watching, and many questions will need to be answered.

First, the Saudis will want to know: Is Obama a friend of the Sunni world, or of the Shia world? “It is a concerning factor for us if America pulls back,” said Prince Turki al-Faisal, an outspoken member of the Saudi royal family, a former head of intelligence and a former ambassador to the United States. “America has changed, we have changed and definitely we need to realign and readjust our understandings of each other.”

Second, Americans will want to know: Will he put the interests of American citizens first, who deserve to know the truth about any possible Saudi involvement (enablement) in 9/11, or will he compromise for the sake of ‘peace and stability’?

And, third, analysts and members of Congress will want to know: What price will President Obama agree to pay Saudi Arabia for their help in the war against ISIS, and/or to continue harboring former Guantanamo Bay detainees?

We should all carefully note the statements Obama makes in Saudi Arabia, and the outcome(s) of the decisions he will have to make.

Will he call Saudi Arabia’s bluff (about economic consequences), or will he continue appeasing the Guardian Of The Holy Places; Islam and Muslims?

The next three days will have a major effect on the course our two countries will take (along with the rest of the world) in the weeks, months and years ahead.

Sanders Campaign Releases Ad Slamming Anti-Muslim Bigotry

Tackling anti-Muslim bigotry and challenging Islamism are complementary rather than contradictory ideas.

Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders released a new campaign video April 18 directly addressing anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States.

Entitled Love Trumps Hate, Sanders argues hatred against Muslims is used in contemporary American political discourse as a sop to distract people from the real problems of wealth inequality and injustice.

He specifically targets Donald Trump in the ad, saying “demagogues like Trump who come along as say ‘I know what the cause of your problem is’.”

“Today it is Muslims, you won’t remember how many years ago we were younger it was the uppity women who were trying to take our jobs as men, it was blacks who wanted to take white jobs that’s what demagoguery is about.”

Sanders is perceived by many as the only candidate in the race addressing concerns that the Muslim community has about rising anti-Muslim bigotry in America. Integration is an important part of the struggle against Islamism and Sanders’ attempts to reach out to the Muslim community are important in promoting that.

Others perceive him as pandering to Islamist apologists. He has met with activists who have spoken out in defense of Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Hamas. The Director of Jews for Bernie, Daniel Sieradski, even praised Hamas, writing “Great insight is to be gained from the remarks of Hamas’ founder, Sheikh Ahemd Yassin, himself, which are much more down-to-earth and pragmatic than any portrayal of Hamas in the right-wing oriented media” according toFrontPage Magazine.

He met with and was endorsed by the head of the Arab-American Association of New York, Linda Sarsour, an organization supported by the Qatar Foundation. The foundation is linked to the Qatari government and the Muslim Brotherhood. Sarsour’s brother-in-law is serving a 12-year sentence in an Israeli prison for involvement with Hamas.

Sanders has taken stances to oppose Islamist extremism as well, currently backing a bill which would enable victims of 9/11 to sue the government of Saudi Arabia over the gulf kingdom’s role in the al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. All other candidates have also backed the bill, except John Kasich who has not yet commented.

Other candidates have focused specifically on the national-security dimension of Muslim integration.

Senator Ted Cruz recently caused controversy by calling for increased patrols of Muslim-majority areas by law enforcement. In December, Trump called for “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Genuine concerns about Islamism must not lead one to fall prey to anti-Muslim bigotry against American Muslims as a whole. Sanders’ advert shows that side of the debate.

Tackling this issue as either “pro- or anti-Muslim” is shortsighted and counter-productive. Only when we are able to robustly challenge Islamism while, at the same time, opposing anti-Muslim bigotry against ordinary Muslims can both toxic ideas be defeated.

To see what all the candidates are saying about Islamist extremism see our profile on the U.S. Presidential Election 2016.

ABOUT ELLIOT FRIEDLAND

Elliot Friedland is the Dialogue Coordinator with the Clarion Project. 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Accusations Against Trump Advisor by Islamists Proven False

Saudis Warn US of Economic Retaliation Over 9/11 Bill

Secret Cables Link Pakistan Intel Org to Deadly Attack on CIA

America Seeks to Charge Aussie With Radicalizing US Citizen

Saudi Arabia threatens the United States — America’s Response Should Be: “Go to Hell”

The Thomas More Law Center’s Richard Thompson posted the following on The President’s Blog:

Saudi Arabia has threatened the United States that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars worth of American assets if Congress passes a bill that would allow families of the 9/11 victims to hold Saudi Arabia legally  responsible for their role in the 9/11 attacks.

The Saudi threat is economic extortion.

Our response should be swift and clear — “Go to Hell.”

Instead, the Obama administration is lobbying Congress to block passage of the bill.

It’s time that the American people know the full story of Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the 9/ 11 attacks – the most horrendous surprise attack in American history.

It’s time that the American people know exactly what our government did to protect Saudi officials residing in America from FBI investigations.  The families of the 9/11 victims have a right to know.  See New York Times article here.

It’s time the American people know how our own government intentionally covered up Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attack.  See New York Post article.

Joint Terrorism Task forces say virtually every road leads back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet, time and again terrorism investigators were called off.

As a first step the American government should declassify the 28 pages of the 838-page congressional report on the 9/11 attacks.

According to recent news articles, some leaked information reveals:

  • A flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijacker’s Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy.
  • The transfer of $130,000 from Prince Bandar, the then Saudi ambassador’s, family checking account to another hijacker’s Saudi handlers in San Diego.
  • Days after 9/11, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one of Osama bin Laden’s family members who was on the terror watch list.
  • According to FBI agent Mark Rossini, “The FBI was thwarted from interviewing the Saudis we wanted to interview by the White House.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

National security expert: Saudis no U.S. ally

How U.S. covered up Saudi role in 9/11

Saudi Arabia Wars of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

Saudi Arabia Panic About 9/11 Lawsuit

Saudi involvement in 9/11 ‘deliberately covered up at highest levels’ of U.S. government

What has the U.S. gained by doing the Saudis’ bidding all these years? Has global jihad terrorism abated? Have the Saudis stopped spreading their violent and virulent Wahhabi ideology around the world? Have the Saudis stopped the rise of the Islamic State? In fact, the whole “alliance” has been a disaster that has severely weakened the United States.

“How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11,” by Paul Sperry, New York Post, April 17, 2016:

In its report on the still-censored “28 pages” implicating the Saudi government in 9/11, “60 Minutes” last weekend said the Saudi role in the attacks has been “soft-pedaled” to protect America’s delicate alliance with the oil-rich kingdom.

That’s quite an understatement.

Actually, the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report — which comprise the entire final chapter dealing with “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers” — details “incontrovertible evidence” gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego.

Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego.

An investigator who worked with the JTTF in Washington complained that instead of investigating Bandar, the US government protected him — literally. He said the State Department assigned a security detail to help guard Bandar not only at the embassy, but also at his McLean, Va., mansion.

The source added that the task force wanted to jail a number of embassy employees, “but the embassy complained to the US attorney” and their diplomatic visas were revoked as a compromise.

Former FBI agent John Guandolo, who worked 9/11 and related al Qaeda cases out of the bureau’s Washington field office, says Bandar should have been a key suspect in the 9/11 probe.

“The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,” Guandolo said. “He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the US government knows are currently funding the global jihad.”

But Bandar held sway over the FBI.

After he met on Sept. 13, 2001, with President Bush in the White House, where the two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one Osama bin Laden family member on the terror watch list. Instead of interrogating the Saudis, FBI agents acted as security escorts for them, even though it was known at the time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.

“The FBI was thwarted from interviewing the Saudis we wanted to interview by the White House,” said former FBI agent Mark Rossini, who was involved in the investigation of al Qaeda and the hijackers. The White House “let them off the hook.”

What’s more, Rossini said the bureau was told no subpoenas could be served to produce evidence tying departing Saudi suspects to 9/11. The FBI, in turn, iced local investigations that led back to the Saudis….

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Palestinian” tried to stab Israelis so he could “marry virgins in Paradise”

UK: Muslim “anti-radicalization expert” says murdered Ahmadi “not real Muslim”

Michael Moore starts #WeAreAllMuslim campaign in front of Trump Towers

“And now, here we are in 2015 and, like many other angry white guys, you are frightened by a bogeyman who is out to get you. That bogeyman, in your mind, are all Muslims. Not just the ones who have killed, but ALL MUSLIMS.” “Angry white guys”? Jihad terror is not a race. Does Michael Moore think Donald Trump is just fine with white jihad terrorists such as John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn, Terry Loewen, etc.?

“That bogeyman, in your mind, are all Muslims. Not just the ones who have killed, but ALL MUSLIMS.” Trump, for all his obvious faults (his opposition to the freedom of speech being chief among them), did not actually say that. In fact, he said just the opposite. He said that Muslim immigration should be stopped until some method could be devised to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims. If he believed that all Muslims were the problem, he would not have made such a distinction.

There is tremendous confusion on this issue, even among conservatives. In the wake of Trump’s remarks, two counter-jihad analysts who should have known better wrote articles saying that Trump was wrong, and that only “Islamists,” not Muslims, should be banned. The question of how to distinguish “Islamists” from the general population of Muslims was left unanswered. Yet that was what Trump was saying: Muslim immigration should be halted temporarily because of the impossibility of determining who the “Islamists” were among the Muslims.

michael more we are all muslims

Michael More.

“Director Michael Moore starts #WeAreAllMuslim campaign in front of Trump Towers,” The Source, December 17, 2015 (thanks to Bulldog):

If all of the controversy stirred up by Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric wasn’t enough, 9/11 director Michael Moore pens a letter to the presidential candidate after posting up in front of Trump Towers with a #WeAreAllMuslim sign before he was arrested by the police. Below is copy of the open letter to Trump:

Dear Donald Trump:

You may remember (you do, after all, have a “perfect memory!”), that we met back in November of 1998 in the green room of a talk show where we were both scheduled to appear one afternoon. But just before going on, I was pulled aside by a producer from the show who said that you were “nervous” about being on the set with me. She said you didn’t want to be “ripped apart” and you wanted to be reassured I wouldn’t “go after you.”

“Does he think I’m going to tackle him and put him in a choke hold?” I asked, bewildered.

“No,” the producer replied, “he just seems all jittery about you.”

“Huh. I’ve never met the guy. There’s no reason for him to be scared,” I said. “I really don’t know much about him other than he seems to like his name on stuff. I’ll talk to him if you want me to.”

And so, as you may remember, I did. I went up and introduced myself to you. “The producer says you’re worried I might say or do something to you during the show. Hey, no offense, but I barely know who you are. I’m from Michigan. Please don’t worry — we’re gonna get along just fine!”

You seemed relieved, then leaned in and said to me, “I just didn’t want any trouble out there and I just wanted to make sure that, you know, you and I got along. That you weren’t going to pick on me for something ridiculous.”

“Pick on” you? I thought, where are we, in 3rd grade? I was struck by how you, a self-described tough guy from Queens, seemed like such a fraidey-cat.

You and I went on to do the show. Nothing untoward happened between us. I didn’t pull on your hair, didn’t put gum on your seat. “What a wuss,” was all I remember thinking as I left the set.

And now, here we are in 2015 and, like many other angry white guys, you are frightened by a bogeyman who is out to get you. That bogeyman, in your mind, are all Muslims. Not just the ones who have killed, but ALL MUSLIMS.

Fortunately, Donald, you and your supporters no longer look like what America actually is today. We are not a country of angry white guys. Here’s a statistic that is going to make your hair spin: Eighty-one percent of the electorate who will pick the president next year are either female, people of color, or young people between the ages of 18 and 35. In other words, not you. And not the people who want you leading their country.

So, in desperation and insanity, you call for a ban on all Muslims entering this country. I was raised to believe that we are all each other’s brother and sister, regardless of race, creed or color. That means if you want to ban Muslims, you are first going to have to ban me. And everyone else.

We are all Muslim.

Just as we are all Mexican, we are all Catholic and Jewish and white and black and every shade in between. We are all children of God (or nature or whatever you believe in), part of the human family, and nothing you say or do can change that fact one iota. If you don’t like living by these American rules, then you need to go to the time-out room in any one of your Towers, sit there, and think about what you’ve said.

And then leave the rest of us alone so we can elect a real president who is both compassionate and strong — at least strong enough not to be all whiny and scared of some guy in a ballcap from Michigan sitting next to him on a talk show couch. You’re not so tough, Donny, and I’m glad I got to see the real you up close and personal all those years ago.

We are all Muslim. Deal with it.

All my best,
Michael Moore

I’m asking everyone to go here (http://buff.ly/1QOSbYL) and sign the following statement: “WE ARE ALL MUSLIM” — and then post a photo of yourself holding a homemade sign saying “WE ARE ALL MUSLIM” on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram using the hashtag ‪#‎WeAreAllMuslim‬. I will post all the photos on my site and send them to you, Mr. Trump. Feel free to join us.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bernie Sanders accuses Trump of Nazism at Mosque with past Nazi ties

Robert Spencer in FrontPage: The LA Schools’ “Not Credible” Threat

Minnesota: Parents question public high school’s choice to sing “Allahu akbar” at holiday concert

Prescribing Solutions for Radical Islam in America

Dr. Welner, on Fox & Bill Bennett, Decries Lies About Mass Shootings and Crisis Incidents, Issues Multi-Pronged Homeland Proposal to Mitigate Risk.

New York – Reacting to the mass shooting incident at a staff holiday party in San Bernardino, the United States government and many media initially emphasized that a workplace mass shooting had taken place. The early national discourse directed itself to gun control advocacy. Once a terrorist motivation could no longer be denied, outlets began suggesting that the shootings were instigated by remarks that one of the deceased had made about Islam not being a peaceful religion, suggesting that he had provoked the killings. More recently, revelations of how United States immigration policy allowed one of the perpetrators into the country has touched off a highly-charged policy debate.Almost immediately after the perpetrators were identified, Dr. Michael Welner, forensic psychiatrist and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, recognized the event to bear the hallmarks of Islamist terrorism, given the role of a female perpetrator – a fact never associated with American mass shootings without direct personal conflict. Such American mass shootings customarily involve perpetrators aspiring to idealized destructive masculine identity.

Dr. Welner’s early appearance on “Fox and Friends” laid out the distinctions from workplace mass killing, and raised the importance of learning more of how a woman taking up destructive spectacle crime (which happens regularly overseas) related to how Muslim identity is expressed in America. Dr. Welner relied on his extensive experience in evaluating mass shooting incidents, workplace risk assessment, and risk assessment and other Jihadi psychology and criminology issues.

Dr. Welner added, in an appearance later that hour on “Fox & Friends,” that the hallmarks of how far one would go for their faith, demonstrated in a woman leaving an infant behind, bore the hallmarks of ISIS’ modus operandi. He encouraged the government and press to be straightforward about terrorist motivation, adding that being forthright was essential to devising public safety plans ahead.

Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, in his nationally broadcast program“Morning in America,” praised Dr. Welner for focusing the discussion on the core cause and not allowing a false narrative to take hold in the press. Dr. Bennett then invited Dr. Welner onto “Morning in America” yesterday to discuss Dr. Welner’s proposals for mitigating Islamist risk in America. Dr. Welner asserted that it was necessary to dismiss a number of oft-repeated false assertions as deliberate manipulations by informed authorities seeking to avoid addressing violence risks and risk factors of potential perpetrators, specifically:

  • Islamist terror is not Islam
  • Adherents to Radical Islamist thinking are very few in number
  • America is responsible for creating intense Muslim hostility towards this country
  • We are not at war with Islam
  • Frank discussion of Islamist terrorism endangers American Muslims

In their extended discussion, Dr. Welner proposed a number of policy prescriptions for mitigating risk. Dr. Welner’s recommendations, which have since been re-published by the Investigative Project for Terrorism and the New English Review, include:

  • Flipping the paradigm to focus on how American Muslims can actively defuse national anxieties of Americans who witness Islamist terrorism, rather than Americans’ alleviating anxieties of attacks on Muslims, which are altogether rare
  • Branding America and how it has helped Muslims around the world
  • Promoting Muslim attitudes reflecting loyalty to America first
  • Encouraging mosque, parental, and family responsibility to self-police communities in order to root out radical nihilists who recruit others and ensnare young people
  • Financially support Muslim institutions’ efforts to root out terrorism from within communities
  • Promote humor and the arts to promote the marginalizing, reform, and self-regulation of Islamist intolerance
  • Retake the campuses from rejectionist Islam, prevent access of radical leadership
  • Retake the prisons from intolerant imams who groom new and alienated adherents and feed angry violent wannabees into the community
  • Ban investment by governments and large donors promoting radical Islam from American media, campaigns, and academic institutions
  • End American backdoor funding and support of countries and entities that collaborate with Islamist terror
  • Expose and root out Islamist contributions to political candidates and to media entities
  • Full security screening of federal employees in sensitive positions who do not currently undergo security clearance
  • End exclusion of Jewish Arabic speakers by American intelligence services, who are available but not relied upon for gathering human intelligence

A more extensive explanation of these proposals can be found at billbennett.com

To listen to Dr. Welner’s interview with Bill Bennett, click here

Dr. Welner’s two interviews with Fox & Friends on San Bernardino, click here and here

Obama in Paris on Muslim slaughter: “This just doesn’t happen in other countries”

Has he already forgotten the Paris jihad massacre?

Note also what he says at the end about the importance of avoiding “demonizing organizations like Planned Parenthood.” This from a man who has never hesitated to demonize his opponents, among them those who speak the truth about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

Video thanks to the Washington Free Beacon.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump under fire for saying “there’s something going on” with Islam

Video: Muslim asylum seekers in Italy approve of Paris jihad attacks

Al Qaeda operatives entered U.S. via refugee program

But relax: Obama says the refugees are no more threatening than tourists.

“Report: al Qaeda Terrorists Entered United States Through Refugee Program,” by Ali Meyer, Washington Free Beacon, November 18, 2015:

Two al Qaeda terrorists who had killed American soldiers were able to enter the country as refugees, according to a report released Wednesday from the House Homeland Security committee.

Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky, after killing American soldiers, whom they bragged about having “for lunch and dinner.” In 2010, they were caught handling weapons, including included a machine gun and a missile launcher, that they planned to smuggle to insurgents in Iraq.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many more than that,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. “And these are trained terrorists in the art of bombmaking that are inside the United States; and quite frankly, from a homeland security perspective, that really concerns me.”

The committee’s report found that the administration’s refugee resettlement program proposal will have “a limited impact on alleviating the overall crisis but could have serious ramifications for U.S. homeland security.”

Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, admitted in October at a hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee that organizations such as the Islamic State might attempt to exploit the Syrian refugee resettlement program.

“It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process,” he said.

President Obama’s refugee resettlement program is now under scrutiny after deadly terrorist attacks in Paris killed more than 120 people and left more than 300 injured on Friday. It is suspected that one of the terrorists entered the country as a refugee.

In addition to these attacks, men in Minnesota were apprehended by the feds for trying to join the Islamic State. There is growing concern that the state would be a recruiting ground for the Islamic State because of its large community of Somali refugees.

The report was released after a nearly year-long investigation evaluating challenges with allowing Syrian refugee flows into the United States.

Governors from many states are now refusing to allow Syrian refugees to resettle in their states.

“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees—any one of whom could be connected to terrorism—being resettled in Texas,” said Gov. Greg Abbott.

“There is an undeniable connection between our refugee resettlement program and the increased risk of a terror attack within the United States,” said Jessica Vaughan, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies.

“There have been roughly 70 terrorist plots in the United States since 9/11 and scores of young people who are first or second generation refugees and immigrants who have become involved in some way with Islamist jihadists, either by undertaking attacks here or traveling overseas to join a terrorist group, or both,” she said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Italy: Muslim pupils refuse to observe minute of silence for Paris victims

Rome’s Prefect: Muslims “first victims” of Paris jihad attacks

More Muslim terror cases in U.S. in 2015 than in any year since 9/11/2001

Clearly the jihadis are more emboldened than ever. Clearly the Islamic State’s declaration of the caliphate has been an impetus for renewed jihad terror activity in the West. That there has been and can be no honest public discussion of why this is happening only ensures that it will continue, and grow more virulent.

Terror-Threat-Snapshot-Infographic-IP_0

AlShabab_MOA_screengrab

“There Have Been More Jihadist Terror Cases in U.S. in 2015 Than in Any Year Since 9/11,” by Michael W. Chapman, CNS News, September 4, 2015 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

(CNSNews.com) – The “Terror Threat Snapshot” for August 2015, released by the majority staff of the House Homeland Security Committee, states the terror threat level in America is high and “getting steadily worse,” and that there have been “more U.S.-based jihadist terror cases in 2015 than in any full year since 9/11.”

The “Terror Threat Snapshot” also reported that the Islamic State “is fueling the Islamist terror” globally; that Islamist terrorists “are intent on killing law enforcement” officers and U.S. troops, as well as civilians; and that 25,000 fighters from 100 countries have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join the Islamic State.

In addition, more than 250 Americans have traveled, or attempted to travel, to Syria to fight with the Islamists.

“The terror threat level in the U.S. homeland is high, and the situation is getting steadily worse,” said the report. “There have been more U.S.-based jihadist terror cases in 2015 than in any full year since 9/11.”

In 2015 so far, there have been 30 U.S.-based jihadist cases, the committee informed CNSNews.com. In 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, there were only two U.S.-based jihadist cases uncovered that year, the committee said.

One of those cases involved Jose Padilla, also known as Abudullah al-Muhajir, a U.S. citizen convicted on multiple counts of criminal conspiracy related to jihadist terrorism; the second case was the Portland Seven, a group of American Muslims who were attempting to join Al Qaeda but were thwarted by the FBI.

For the August 2015 “Terror Threat Snapshot,” the majority staff of the Homeland Security Committee reported that, “In July alone, a terrorist murdered U.S. service members in Chattanooga, and authorities arrested extremists seeking to live-stream a terrorist attack on a college campus and planning to kill U.S. vacationers on the beaches of Florida.”

“The number of U.S. terrorist cases involving homegrown violent jihadists has gone from 38 in July 2010 to 122 today—a three-fold increase in just five years,” reads the Snapshot….

The Snapshot further reported that since early 2014, “there have been 55 planned or executed ISIS-linked terror plots against Western targets, including 14 inside in the United States.”

In addition, “[t]here have been nearly twice as many ISIS-linked plots against Western targets in the first seven months of this year (35) than in all of 2014,” reported the committee.

The “Terror Threat Snapshot” can be read in its entirety here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

An Interactive Timeline of 73 Islamist Terror Plots Since 9/11

Muslims Team Up With Black Lives Matter

Egypt: “You’re a Christian? Then I will kill you!”

Christians in Syrian town where priest was kidnapped now paying jizya

If Gun Control Works in Europe, Where Do Terrorists Get their Weapons?

Black Gay Man who shot Virginia journalists “closely identified” with 9/11 Muslim jihadis

Whether it’s race hatred such as that which drove Vester Flanagan to commit murder, or jihad hatred that drove the 9/11 hijackers to commit murder on a grand scale, it all ultimately comes from the same wellspring. Yet the enablers and tacit supporters of jihad terrorism gain a great deal of success in the U.S. by tarring foes of jihad terror as “hatemongers.” The real hate is all on their side.

“Man who shot Virginia journalists identified with 9/11 attacks: sheriff,” by Ian Simpson, Reuters, August 28, 2015:

The gunman who killed two Virginia television journalists on air carried out a well-planned assault and identified with mass murderers and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, authorities said on Friday.

The shooter, Vester Flanagan, gave no sign of his destination or next move when he fled after gunning down the journalists from Roanoke station WDBJ7 on Wednesday, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement.

“It is evident that Wednesday morning’s attack was well-planned and premeditated” and Flanagan apparently acted alone, the statement on the shooting investigation said.

Flanagan, a former station employee, fired 17 rounds from a .40 caliber Glock pistol when he attacked reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward as they were conducting a live interview at Smith Mountain Lake in southwest Virginia, the statement said.

Flanagan shot himself during a police chase in northern Virginia and died. The woman who was being interviewed was wounded and hospitalized.

Evidence and his writings show that Flanagan “closely identified with individuals who have committed domestic acts of violence and mass murder, as well as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.,” said the statement. Almost 3,000 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks….

In a fax to ABC News the day of the shooting, Flanagan, who was black, called himself a “powder keg” over what he saw as racial discrimination. He was fired from CBS affiliate WDBJ7 in 2013….

RELATED ARTICLE: Pentagon not targeting Islamic State training camps

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Vester Flanagan is a screen shot from Twitter.

Salman Rushdie: World Learned ‘Wrong Lessons’ from His Iran Fatwa

peace with iran tshirts

‘Fear disguised as respect’

“The writer said that the controversy that surrounded the PEN prize to Charlie Hebdo this year convinced him that, if the attacks against ‘The Satanic Verses’ had occurred today, ‘these people would not come to my defence and would use the same arguments against me by accusing me of insulting an ethnic and cultural minority.’” Indeed so. That was what happened after our free speech event in Garland, Texas: the international media, including many “conservatives” such as Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham, excoriated Pamela Geller and declared that she should have shown more “respect” — which really meant that she should have submitted in fear, as they were doing.

The freedom of speech is seriously imperiled, and most Americans have bought into the idea that “hate speech,” which they assume to be an entity that can be objectively established, does not deserve protection. They have no idea that they’re thereby paving the way for authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

“Salman Rushdie says the world learned the ‘wrong lessons’ from his Iran fatwa ordeal,” Agence France-Presse, July 22, 2015:

More than a quarter century after being slapped with a fatwa from Iran [sic] calling for his murder over his book “The Satanic Verses”, Salman Rushdie says the world has learned the “wrong lessons” about freedom of expression.

The British author, in an interview published Wednesday by the French news magazine L’Express, said his ordeal by religious fanatics determined to violently avenge what they construed as blasphemy should have served as a wake-up call to the world.

Instead, after the September 11, 2001 attack on America and the massacre in Paris in January this year of cartoonists and staff at the Charlie Hebdo satirical weekly, and with the ongoing rampage of the brutal Islamic State group in the Middle East, Rushdie saidsome writers and other people were too cowed to talk freely about Islam.

“It seems we learned the wrong lessons,” he said in the interview printed in French.“Instead of concluding we need to oppose these attacks on freedom of expression, we believed we should calm them through compromises and ceding.”

The “politically correct” positions voiced by some — including a few prominent authors who disagreed with Charlie Hebdo receiving a freedom of speech award at a PEN literary gala in New York in May — were motivated by fear, Rushdie said.

– ‘Fear disguised as respect’ –

“If people weren’t being killed right now, if bombs and Kalashnikovs weren’t speaking today, the debate would be very different. Fear is being disguised as respect,” he said….

The writer said that the controversy that surrounded the PEN prize to Charlie Hebdo this year convinced him that, if the attacks against “The Satanic Verses” had occurred today, “these people would not come to my defence and would use the same arguments against me by accusing me of insulting an ethnic and cultural minority”….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sweden arrests two Muslims accused of jihad terrorism

Islamic State vows to “fill the streets of Paris with dead bodies”

Pamela Geller and the Hijacking of America

On the morning of September 11, 2001, I couldn’t help thinking, I could have been a passenger on one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Today the feeling is back, as if we are all passengers on a hijacked plane the size of America, heading towards an imminent crash. The question is, knowing what we know now, what are we going to do about it?

Shortly before American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower, an Egyptian-born jihadi, Mohammed Atta, addressed the passengers over the intercom:

“Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay.  We are returning to the airport… Nobody move.  Everything will be okay.  If you try to make any move, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane.  Just stay quiet… Nobody move, please…  Don’t try to make any stupid moves.”

Twenty minutes later they died a horrible death, accompanied by hundreds of people inside the North Tower. Had the passengers known the real plan, they might have attempted to take matters into their own hands and possibly avert a bigger disaster. But they likely believed Mohammed Atta, especially since no hijacker had deliberately crashed a plane before.  Many were probably thinking, Let the government sort it out, that’s whom the terrorists always blackmail. We just need to stay quiet and make no stupid moves. Of course we’ll be okay.

Tactical deception, especially when lying to non-Muslims, is legally sanctioned under Sharia, which is a mainstream, universal Islamic law.  In Sunni Islam, such practice is referred to as mudarat, or taquiyya.

Fast-forward fourteen years to Garland, TX.  Jihadists drove a thousand miles to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. The cop who shot them to death likely prevented a gruesome massacre. We are now being told that this would not have happened and everything would have been okay if Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer had stayed quiet and didn’t make any stupid moves, such as, organizing the exhibition of Mohammed cartoons.

This is exactly the behavior of passengers on a hijacked plane. We hope that everything will be okay as long as we remain quiet and make no stupid moves. We willingly trust the voices on TV and hope the government will sort it out. We want to believe that every act of Islamic terrorism is an isolated incident, that they only target the government, and that the 58% of Muslim-Americans in a 2012 survey who think that that critics of Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges, with 12% of them favoring the death penalty for blasphemy, are not part of a bigger phenomenon. Just stay quiet and nothing bad will happen. After all, no terrorist has ever hijacked and crashed an entire nation before.

Alas, nations have been consistently hijacked and crashed throughout history. This has always been executed according to the same blueprint, which originated in the 7th century Islamic conquests and is known to Islamic jurists as the Pact of Umar.

While the Pact of Umar’s precise origins are a matter of legend, its conditions, based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people, have gained a canonical status in Islamic jurisprudence with regard to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, otherwise known as dhimmis, and as such became a subset of Sharia law.

Given that Sharia by definition cannot be altered any more than one can alter the Koran or the Sunna, and even talking about reforming Sharia is considered blasphemous, its medieval rulings about what dhimmis are allowed or not allowed to do, are still in effect today. According to a recent Pew survey, the majority of Muslims worldwide want Sharia to be the law of the land everywhere; that includes the Conditions of Umar, even if those who practice them may not necessarily refer to them by that name.

Settling in non-Muslim countries, Muslim minorities traditionally bring with them Sharia law, which prescribes them to punish dhimmis who overstep certain boundaries regardless of what the local law says, because the “God-given” Sharia law will always be superior to the “man-made law” of the dhimmis.

Under the many Conditions of Omar, dhimmis aren’t allowed to criticize anything that has to do with Islam, including the very conditions of subjugation under which they live. Dhimmis are supposed to remain ignorant about Islamic teachings and can only refer to Islam in positive terms. Mocking, insulting, cursing, or even upsetting Muslims in any way, testifying against a Muslim in court, or raising a hand against a Muslim, even in self-defense, is forbidden.

Criticism of a Muslim person by a dhimmi — even if it’s based on undeniable facts, constitutes “slander” and is punishable by death. In contrast with the Western definition of slander — false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation — Sharia defines slander as any statement a Muslim would dislike, regardless if its degree of accuracy. This works in conjunction with another Sharia ruling, which gives all Muslims an open license to murder the offender wherever they find him. That doesn’t mean all Muslims will do it, but if someone volunteers to do the killing, he will not be punished under Sharia. In modern times, this means an open season of vigilante street justice on any critic of Islam anywhere on the planet.

Suddenly, the medieval choices jihadis place before their victims are all over today’s news coverage, just as they were originally set out in the Koran:  convert to Islam, submit to the Muslim rule and pay a non-Muslim religious tax called jizya, or die by the sword. Those who submit, as we’ve seen in the territories conquered by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, are doomed to a life of humiliation, subjugation, discrimination, and confiscatory taxation.

Dhimmi translates as “protected person,” which is similar in meaning to protection racket: what a nice dhimmi community you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it. You are protected from violence as long as you obey the conditions and pay the protection money. But if any of the dhimmis act up or “made a stupid move,” his or her action puts the entire dhimmi community in jeopardy of jihadi retaliation, where anyone is fair game for collective punishment.

Western nations with a significant share of Muslim immigrants are now learning to live in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear that one of them might upset a Muslim and thus provoke rioting or jihad slaughter. As a result, Western dhimmis are learning to police each other and make sure no one in their community makes any “stupid moves.”

Pamela Geller just did that. Her exhibition of Mohammed cartoons has crossed the line of permissible dhimmi behavior, and for that she has become a target of criticism by the American media, including some conservative commentators. Among the many stated reasons why Pamela should have “just stayed quiet,” the main argument remains unstated: she made a stupid move and now we’re all in danger of retaliation.

The real questions the media should be asking is, if we aren’t already living under the Conditions of Umar, what would we do differently if we did?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the American Thinker. You may follow the American Thinker at: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook