Imagine that you’re a Christian high school student participating in a mock terrorist exercise in your school and you’re told that the faux terrorists belonged to a group called “the New Crusaders” and that they were holding everyone hostage because the daughter of a group member was expelled for “praying before class.”

They were “seeking justice” so you’re told.

While Burlington Township High denied that the mock attack was aimed at making Christian students feel uncomfortable, and that they weren’t referring to Christians as terrorists, let’s be real here. No Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Shinto’s, Hindus, Wiccans or any other world religion has ever been referred to as “Crusaders.” And for the most part, it’s been Christian kids who have had to deal with the 11^th Commandment of the United States: thou shalt not pray openly in school.

It seems some Americans are clueless as to who the enemy is these days. Maybe if Burlington Township had consulted Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, president of Killology Research Group (an anti-terrorism consultancy that trains FBI and other law enforcement) they would have selected a different group for their protagonists:

“Floor plans for schools in Virginia, Texas and New Jersey have been recovered from terrorist hands in Iraq…Islamic terrorists are already in place in the United States and yes, that includes [school] bus drivers, cafeteria workers…”

According to Grossman, videotapes were also confiscated in Afghanistan showing Al-Qaida terrorists practicing for the take-over of a school.

But instead the wicked ones were called “New Crusaders.”

Blurring the lines between what is and is not a terrorist group has become the favorite pass time of liberal ideologues. For years there’s been an attempt to point the finger at Christians and declare us a dangerous group of radicals. Supposedly we wanted to stone adulterous women, among other things. Oddly enough, the one book that defines the faith of genuine Christians has Christ forgiving an adulterous woman. Go figure.

Since the attacks of 9-11, and in particular the re-election of George Bush, who is a born-again Christian (though not necessarily a conservative one) it’s been the mantra of the irreligious left to refer to our President as a “terrorist” and Christians as terrorists as well.

Tossed into the mix of “Christian terrorists” are the likes of Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing); various anti-abortion bombers/shooters; the KKK; Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph; etc.

Representatives of the irreligious left are quick to use the above incidents as a means to criticize our national security programs:

“We may hear quite a lot about the government’s fight against Muslim terrorists, but what about Christian terrorists? There was a time that three of the FBI’s top ten most wanted criminals were anti-abortion terrorists- Christians one and all, committing acts of terrorism in an effort to promote their religious beliefs. Why have they dropped off the radar?”

Why indeed. Answer: most are in prison or have had the death penalty enacted on them.

Sure, they have their groupies. The Army of God is still hanging out but is “underground” according to the MIPT anti-terrorism website. Michael Bray, who is considered the “Pastor” of the group, served prison time for clinic bombings. He’s also written some “how to” commit violence against abortion clinic books, which appeal NOT to the New Testament, but to Old Testament passages. The eye-for-an-eye stuff. Not the “love your enemies” stuff.

Army of God has a few boys in detention: Richard Rudolph, James Kopp, and Clayton Waagner are all doing time for their crimes. The last attack attributed to them was 1998, which could explain why they’re not on the terrorist watch list: they’ve been mouthing off, but as any good liberal will tell you, free speech means you can say some pretty distasteful things, even make threats, so long as said threats fall within the law, like, oh, I don’t know…. DEATH TO AMERICA?

KNOW YOUR ENEMY
The United States didn’t just come under attack from Islamists on September 11, 2001. We have been the target of Islamists for decades. It merely solidified, with a huge bang, on that beautiful September morning.

Unfortunately, in trying to blur the lines, liberals would rather point in the wrong direction than deal with an uncomfortable truth: we are being judged by the Islamic world, not because we’re a super power with a military and bombs, but for “moral” reasons. The Islamists have been judging America since the visit of Sayyed Qutb in the 1940’s. And the war, they’ve said, has been our representative super power waging war on pious Islam. We, the Americans, they reason, have been trying to destroy moral Islam bit by bit by bit.

It’s a shame that liberals cannot see this. If they did, the anti-abortion radicals would pale in comparison and the ACLU and People for the American Way wouldn’t be so distressed by Mel Gibson as they should be by an Ahmadinejad.

Instead, liberals (and in particular atheists) point to vignettes and try to scare the bee-jeebers out of people with stories that aren’t exactly accurate.

Like the story about a library that had to cancel a summer program for kids which involved occult teachings: “LUNATIC BAPTISTS SHUT DOWN SUMMER LIBRARY PROGRAM” the header reads. Supposedly there were “threats of violence” and the bunny trail led back to a Baptist Church and included emails and a single phone call.

But an article at the American Library Association website revealed the facts. “Going to get you” was a threat to PICKET THE LIBRARY. Not bomb it. And the library decided to cancel because they didn’t want to ask children to cross a picket line. “Having children walk through pickets was just horrible, so from that perspective, we decided we would just cancel…”

Before you go ballistic about how unfair that is to children, remember: public libraries are paid for with public dollars. Tax payer bucks. Any tax paying citizen has the right to peaceful protest of a public facility. Period.

In a speech he delivered at Yale in 1962, President John F. Kennedy said:

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”

The myth that Christians are a danger to people’s lives in this country, in particular pro-life Christians or those who oppose things like gay marriage, etc., is not only unrealistic, it’s also dangerous. If the same criteria is applied to the loopy left it makes for an interesting collective.

THE DANGEROUS LOOPY LEFTISTS

It seems the liberal criteria for what does and does not constitute a terrorist group involves whether or not it’s their pet group. Anti-abortion people are obviously terrorists, not because they’re trying to attack America, but because they’re opposing (in a bad way) the loopy leftist love of abortion.

Suppose that same criteria were applied to leftist groups? Below is my list of possible terrorist groups the FBI should add to the list.

ELF. No, not the cute little guy in a green suit! This is the Earth Liberation Front. They’re not on the terrorist watch list, are they? Nope. But they have had some problems here in the U.S. and abroad. In 2006, there were 11 indictments handed down against ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front) members.

Jerry Vlasak, has been arrested several times for his pro-critter activities. One would think a man who favors treating animals ethically and kindly would likewise do so with the human animal, right? Not so:

In 2003 Vlasak had this to say concerning doctors who use animal research in their practice:

Did I mention that Vlasak was a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine? Um yeah. That’s responsible medicine, doc.

And did I mention that most eco-animal rights groups try not to harm humans? Kind of like most pro-life groups don’t endorse shooting abortion doctors?

ADL. Yes, the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL was founded and formed to “protect Jewish people by whatever means possible” and on the JDL website, there’s an admission that it’s founder, Rabbi Kahane, was um, well, a little off his matzos. In any case, the 2001 attempt by ADL chief, Irving David, makes it plain that the ADL still has some violent roots, right? After all, they were planning to blow up a mosque and the offices of U.S. Representative (a American from Lebanon) Darrell Issa. Some of the phrases picked up in the wire-tapping were things like: “blow up the entire building” and “Arabs need a wake-up call.”

And the ADL worried about Mel Gibson?

ATHEISTS & AGNOSTICS. Come on guys. If you can point to the Crusades, can’t we point to atheism and agnosticism as possible problems, too? Stalin, Lenin, Castro. Tung and Marx were all atheist. We also have Jeffrey Dahmer who was an ATHEIST at the time he dined on unsuspecting gays. Later he would convert to Christianity.

And while we’re at it, what about Timothy McVeigh? Atheist Dan Barker tried to claim that McVeigh was a Christian in his article: Christian Terrorism in Oklahoma City.

According to an article in the Guardian, UK, McVeigh’s own words deny any link to Christianity:

“In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would ‘improvise, adapt and overcome‘, if it turned out there was an afterlife. ‘If I'm going to hell,’ he wrote, ‘I'm gonna have a lot of company.’ His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.”

In his book, American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing, Lou Michael records hours of interview with McVeigh. In a CNN interview, Michael recounts:

McVeigh explained, in his own letter, why he bombed the Murrah building. And it had nothing to do with Christ, Christianity, or any moral stance involving issues near and dear to Christians.

"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco). From the formation of such units as the FBI's Hostage Rescue and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the 80s, culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.”

In an event that killed men, women and children, committed by the first American terrorist of the 21^st century, it’s interesting that this would be an agnostic. McVeigh claimed, as do many agnostic, that science is his religion.

RECENT CHRISTIAN FAUX PAS

Christians don’t make very good bombers and such. Not like McVeigh and definitely not like the 19 Islamic terrorists of 9-11 fame. Recent “terrorist” actions by Christians include David Robert McMenemy’s messed up attempt at ramming his car into an abortion clinic (2006).

As the bungler sits in prison (where he should be) on charges of second degree arson (he soaked his car in gas and rammed it into the clinic). Not only was it NOT an abortion clinic (seems McMenemy wasn’t the brightest bulb in the pack for more reasons than one), the clinic was empty and McMenemy walked out of the mess, admitting he did it. The sprinkler system prevented the health clinic from being completely destroyed and no lives were lost.

Is this any different from an animal rights activist group blowing up a research lab?

Yet we have classic liberal hyperbole applied here:

Huh? A ten year old car slamming into an empty building by a man with a known history of mental instability, a man who obviously had the planning skills of an apricot, is being compared to the 9-11 hijackers?

Not that his actions weren’t wrong. Just as it’s wrong when animal rights and eco-activists do their stunts. But let’s be real here, this just simply is NOT the same as 9-11 and while I would never suggest that police write off these incidents as being unimportant, I certainly have much more concern about people who plan to blow up airports and military bases than a guy who can’t even manage to off himself.

And then there’s Max Blumenthal’s article about the Falwell funeral at the Huffington Post. Blumenthal points to Mark Uhl, a Liberty University student who toted what amounted to a useless puff bomb in his car. Apparently Uhl told someone about it, and that someone alerted authorities. He mentions that a group had planned to protest the Falwell funeral and that Uhl made the bomb to deter the protestors. Reading from Uhl’s (now closed off) blog, Blumenthal quotes:

"Christians, we have been given life after death and we should help others receive it and not sit here in our big buildings and sing to ourselves so we can go home and feel good about ourselves…Christians, fear of death, fear of death. The fear of death shows you don't believe…

God needs soldiers to fight so his children may live free. Are you afraid??? I'm not. SEND ME!!! "

Blumenthal draws a parallel between this and Osama bin Laden:

If a belief in life after death, heaven, Svarga, Paradise, Nirvana, whatever you want to call it, and no fear of the reaper qualifies one for the nuthouse or, at least, a terrorist list, then shoot, even orthodox Jews qualify, Mr. Blumenthal.

Blumenthal also got the motive wrong:

“Uhl was an a devout evangelical Christian who advocated religious violence in the name of American nationalism.”

I will about bet that as time passes, if the media cares to cover it, we’ll find out this was a case of a young man who was given a scholarship to Liberty University and felt some personal allegiance to the memory of a man he admired, even if he didn’t handle the problem in a manner consistent with Falwell’s teachings.

Blumenthal also left out that while the bomb would have done some damage, it was a slowburn bomb which, according to authorities, would not have been very destructive. The 19-year-old now sits in prison, where he belongs of course. In the meantime, there are Islamic terrorist cells here in the United States and abroad which are planning attacks on us.

But then, we have those who cannot tell the enemy from the anomaly. On tompaine.com, an article about the Falwell funeral states:

“Stop it. Stop it right now. Stop pretending Islamists- or environmentalists or animal right activists are the only immanent terrorist threats to our nation. We now know that the students at Liberty University were ready to use homemade bombs against protestors at Jerry Falwell’s funeral.”

Blumenthal was at least honest enough to point out that the protestors were members of the Westboro Baptist Church of “God Hates Fags” fame. Why were they going there? They didn’t like some of the things Falwell said, did not say, things he did, did not do, well just about everything. Below are snippets from their website:

“Falwell cut a deal with his f a g preacher bud, Mel White On Oct. 24, 1999, at his Thomas Road Church, Lynchburg, Va., Jerry Fraudwell denounced WBC Pastor Fred Phelps for preaching truth to f a g s, to the delight of f a g preacher Mel White…”

“God Hates F a gs! And F a g-Enablers! Ergo God hates Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and all sick Armenian heretic preachers…”

Are you getting the impression that these people are wrapped a little too tight?

Again, nobody approves of using violence to inhibit protest. On the other side, the kid bungled it and the bomb wouldn’t have even caused any real damage other than to maybe make the people from WBB think they’d had a collective fart.

THE ENEMY MAY BE LIBERALISM?

“Fascist, racist, anti-abortion groups are responsible for really all the terrorist attacks in the United States- with the exception of September 11, 2001- over the past two decades.”

                                                                                                                 -Patrick Martin

                                                                                        World Socialist Website, 2005

Martin’s words ring hollow as they ignore the past 20 years of activism by environmentalists, animal rights groups, and other religious groups who have done things in the name of their belief or cause. He also seems to forget that an attack IN the United States need not be the criteria for a threat against the American people. Attacks ON the American people- or the people of America- by Islamists have spanned decades, beginning with the assassination of Robert Kennedy- a hero of the left- by Sirhan Sirhan in 1968.

The list of attacks against Americans by Islamists clearly shows who the real enemy terrorists are:

1983- Bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon (twice that year.)

1984- Kuwait Airlines hijacking, Americans murdered.

1985- Madrid restaurant bombed, American servicemen killed.

1985- TWA flight hijacked, Navy sailor murdered and his body dumped on the tarmac.

1988- Lockerbie, Scotland. Pan Am 747 hijacked and passengers killed including 189 Americans.

1988- Berlin Disco bombing- disco was full of American military on R&R.

1992- hotel housing U.S. servicemen bombed.

1993- Attempted assassination of President George Bush, Sr.

1993- First World Trade Center bombing attempt, 7 killed, over 1,000 injured.

1995- Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan.

1995- Attack on U.S. military installation in Saudi Arabia.

1996- Khobar Towers attack, 19 U.S. military killed, over 200 injured.

1997- Palestinian gunman fires on tourists on top of the Empire State Building.

1998- Peruvian Embassy bombing.

1998- U.S. Embassy in Kenya blown up- hundreds murdered- terrorists also hit 
           Embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania. Americans injured and killed.

2000- Americans kidnapped in Uzbekistan.

2000- Attack on the U.S.S Cole, 17 killed, 39 injured.

2001- WTC, Pentagon come under attack; over 3000 Americans murdered.

2002- Teenager flies his plane into a building, he left behind a suicide note proclaiming his

           admiration for Osama bin Laden.

2002- D.C. Sniper- Nation of Islam convert kills multiple persons in different places around

          the metro area and on the east coast.

2002- Two American women killed in a grenade attack on a church in Pakistan.

2002- LAX attack.

2002- Marines attacked and murdered in Kuwait.

2002- Jordan. American diplomat shot while in his car by Al-Qaida.

2002- Yemen. Islamic gunman poses as a father carrying his child, kills three American

           humanitarian workers at a missionary hospital.

The list piles longer and longer. And with the recent attempts aimed at Kennedy International Airport and Fort Dix, to say that Christians or any other anomaly group poses a danger more than - or equal to that - of Islamists is to deny reality.

Liberals seem bent on retaining their Cleopatra Syndrome and remaining the “Queens of Denial.” But at what expense? While they (and I include ardent atheists in the mix) want to point to Christians as the enemy, they’re missing the real enemy in their midst.

Someone once said “he that's liberal to all alike, may do a good by chance, but never out of judgment.”

It’s time liberals, regardless of party affiliation, religion, irreligion, race or gender, need to stop trying to do good by chance and exercise better judgment. Not for the Christian’s sake, but for the sake of our nation. Blurring the lines so as to hide who is the real enemy puts all at risk.

It was a sobering thought when I first learned that I and my children were living across from the Polaris Missile Facility in South Carolina. It was equally sobering to realize that we were also housed next to the storage facility for W-80-0 Tomahawk’s, SCLM munitions and nuclear aerial bombs. So when my Mom came to visit that year, and asked me "what’s that fenced area across from housing?" I smiled and said: "officers housing…"

It wasn’t over on 9-11. Not by a long shot. Looking at the FBI website we find an interesting accumulation of cases in which people have taken full advantage of their freedoms in the United States to do the unthinkable: help fund and/or actively engage in, terrorist activities against the citizens of the very country which has protected them and their families.

Money laundering and other schemes seem to have been directly linked to main terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups situated primarily in the Middle East. And while law enforcement talks about the terrorist cells among us, what we are seeing with more and more frequency are not Hezbollah cells coming forward, rather, small, independent groups which seemingly have no links nor ties to established terrorist organizations.

The D.C. snipers, for example, had no links to major terrorist groups. In fact, John Allen Muhammed (the elder of the two) was a member of Nation of Islam (NOI) which is NOT ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST. Though one has to ask why that is so, given the long history of NOI members participating in murderous acts. The Zebra murders which took place between 1973-74 were considered one of the most heinous race-related attacks in American history.
 
All totaled, 71 people were killed. These were whites killed by black "death angels" from the Nation of Islam. Included were two Salvation Army Cadets. One woman was decapitated. Most were old, feeble, or otherwise unable to defend themselves.

Fast forward to the Fort Dix Six. Not all criminal activity relating to Muslims comes from the NOI. Video showed the six, along with several other young men in their twenties, sporting assault weapons and yelling Allah Akbar!

Of the six arrested, three are brothers. They’re from Yugoslavia. Links to established terrorist groups? None. Link to Nation of Islam? None. They ran a roofing company. Their friends, the other three, included a taxi driver, a 7-11 store clerk and a pizza store worker. All foreign born. All living in the U.S. All Muslim.

Go back a step. We have the incident in 2006 wherein Jose Padilla and others conspired to blow up the Sears Tower. He tried to reach al-Queda but never got in touch with them apparently. Narsen Batiste, was the recruiter for the group calling itself the "Seas of David".

The Seas of David was part of the "Moorish Science Temple of America", founded in 1913 and holds, as it’s basic belief, the idea that all blacks are born Muslim and descended from the Moors.

Forward to 2007. Sulejmen Talovic, an 18 year old Bosnian Muslim refugee murdered five and wounded four others in a mall in Salt Lake City, Utah. No ties to terrorist groups. He was apparently just another Muslim.

Hop back to 1997 and the shootings off of the Empire State Building. Ali Abu Kamal was an American resident. He killed one person and turned the gun on himself. No ties to terrorist groups. Just a deep-seated hatred for Israel and America’s pro-Israeli stance. And a belief that he had to dabble in Jihad. Oh yeah. He too, was Muslim.

Jump up to 2002 and Imran Mandhai. His plan was to blow up Mt. Rushmore. Now, before you cheer (some Americans think it’s an eyesore, if you’re one of them, get over it) he also wrote and printed copies of a little instruction booklet for would-be jihadists entitled: "Skills Necessary for Jihad."

Clip forward again, to December 2006. Derrick Shareef, an American Muslim, decides to try and blow up a shopping mall in Chicago (Merry Christmas?) His plan was foiled. There’s no record of his having direct connections to any terrorist groups.

Now the events of this past week. Russell Defreitas, a 63 year old man, leads a little group of younger men to attempt a terrorist act. Defreitas had no known ties to any of the major terrorist groups. He was trying to "hook up with some heavy-hitters" but never got to. His reason for selecting JFK International may seem simplistic and childish to us, but Teddy Kennedy may want to rethink his stance on being so understanding of the enemy:

"Any time you hit a Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United States. To hit John F. Kenney, wow. They love John F. Kennedy like he’s the man. If you hit that, this whole country will be in mourning. It’s like you can kill the man twice."

So let’s see here. Is birthplace the consistent factor? No. Is race? No. Age leans towards the young, but not always. Hitting landmarks is almost consistent, but not always. What about being influenced by external terrorist groups like Hezbollah?

Nope. While many in the money-laundering and fund raising end of terrorist activity have been related to established terrorist groups, in recent years we are seeing a disturbing thread: the only thing the plotters on our soil all have in common is Islam.

Of course that’s always been there. The 9-11 hijackers had that in common, too. But they were also linked to external terrorist groups. This means influence. We can almost excuse those who come under the tutelage of charismatic terrorist leaders. Note that I said ALMOST excuse.

There is personal responsibility there regardless of how much influence someone has over you.

But all these others come from outside that Middle Eastern influence. They don’t know one another. They didn’t all attend the same Mosque nor even hang out in the same hukkah bar.

The only thing they all have in common is Islam.

During the news conference addressing the arrests of those involved in the attempted assault on JFK Airport, New Jersey U.S. Attorney, Christopher Christie stated:

"The philosophy that supports and encourages jihad around the world against Americans came to live here in New Jersey and threaten the lives of our citizens through these defendants."

This philosophy, Mr. Christie, didn’t spring out of nowhere. Yes, it came from another part of the world. And it’s being disseminated in our own country. Not by wild-eyed radicals in long beards and head dresses. But via a belief system which teaches that, while there is "no compulsion in religion", the world would be a much more peaceful place if we were all Muslim. And by Allah, we’ll get that peace if we have to kill each and every infidel to do it.

This may seem hard line. Do I really think that all Muslims in America would want to kill the non-believers? I don’t know. All I know is what I see. Rather, what I don’t see: the blanket condemnation of these actions WHEN THEY HAPPEN.

And don’t tell me Muslims cannot get it together enough to protest this kind of behavior. If each one acted independently, as the terrorists mentioned above have done, Muslims who disapprove of these attempts to harm their fellow Americans would be out in synergic force.

Instead we get silence. In going to the CAIR website (Council on American Islamic Relations) what do I see on their front page? Articles about Muslims raising awareness for breast cancer. Stories about Muslims’ rights being "violated". A press release dated from June 1, 2007 (the same day the plot broke in the news) demanding that a Guantanamo detainee have a Canadian lawyer.

Silence about the attempt to kill what could have amounted to thousands of Americans.

In going to freemuslims.org, a group which claims to represent Muslims who oppose terrorism, what I find is an absence of condemnation for the recent event. Generic denials and arguments are nice, but something of this magnitude is certainly worth a five minute write up, don’t you think?

Maybe because it’s the weekend? No wait, Sunday is the Christian day. Saturday is the Jewish day. Friday is the Muslim day. Why the delay?

I suspect we may eventually hear some denunciation of the Fort Dix Six and the JFK International plot. After the denunciation has been checked over by attorneys and screened by Imams. In the meantime, we all wait. And wonder: What will be the next target?

A recent Pew Research Survey (see: Muslims In America) revealed something that should be of primary interest to our leaders in Washington. According to the survey, 8% of all American Muslims between 18-29 believe there are times when suicide bombings are acceptable.

While the survey doesn’t indicate whether or not those in that 8% would commit such a crime, the fact that they can see some validity behind the action could indicate that there are some 56,000 young Muslims out there who would, if they had the chance and ability, participate in a suicide bombing on American soil.

It is easy to try and blame poverty, a lack of education, even a problem with social morality for the increase of suicide bombers. Even our President has bought into the notion:

"We fight poverty because hope is the answer to terror... We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize".

Research conducted over the past few years challenges the once accepted theory that suicide bombers- who are predominantly males between the ages of 18-29, are mentally ill, poor, disenfranchised and uneducated.

Most of those engaging in suicide bombing are noted as being young, middle class, they may have had difficult lives growing up (traumas, abuse, etc.), and have at least a High School level education.

They are generally not impoverished, and showed no signs of mental pathology.

But there are two things which they do seem to have in common which could help in addressing the issue of suicide bombers: 1) either they or their parents come from countries where there are limited political freedoms, and, 2) they have strong religious or political beliefs.

While there are many Muslims out there who decry this sort of thing as contrary to the Koranic teachings, there are those who are insistent on what they perceive as true Islam. They make up the martyrs and those who encourage suicide attacks. They have redefined such words as "attack" and "innocent" so as to blur the distinction between war and curtailment of terrorist activity.

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS and SUICIDE BOMBING

Perhaps no greater controversy exists than that of the role of Islam when it comes to acts of suicide bombing. Some believe that Islam encourages- if not outright commands- a person to kill themselves in the "cause of Allah". Others claim that JIHAD (struggle) can apply to anything and that Islam detests suicidal acts.

As with any controversial issue the truth likely lay somewhere in the middle, in between both points of view.

In order to understand why Islam plays a predominant role in the actions of those who would make themselves "martyrs" for Allah, one first has to look at how they’re taught to view the world- in particular the Western world- around them.

Sociologists suggest that one of the identifiers of a cult is that they tend to enforce a separation between the cult member and the world around them. This is not esoteric separatism. It is a type of radical, mental isolationism which has, at it’s core, a sense of personal and religious elitism. What we often summarize as "holier than thou" but with an extremist bent which makes it perfectly acceptable to see certain persons or groups as expendable- not based on anything they do- rather- based upon a holiness perception.

He also blames the presence of the American military in Bangkok for "the spread of corruption and deviation there" as well as claiming that:

All of this is seen, not merely as a degradation of a particular society, but as a "crusade" against Islam. Al-Fahd doesn’t see this degradation as insular. Rather, he sees it as having an affect on Islam.

To wit: the great Satan and all of it’s minions are trying to demoralize Islam, to bring it down MORALLY, not just politically. The war, therefore, isn’t simply a war of political ideologies, it is also a war of moral ideologies deeply rooted in a religious system.

What could be more appealing to a young Muslim male, age 19 or 20, who feels he has no real purpose or mission in life? Who has been emotionally, if not physically, separated from the world around him? Who sees bad things going on in the world and who, in order to make sense of things, finds an answer for where to lay the blame?

The Koran is specific in it’s assessment of the Muslim:

"You are the best nation that has ever been raised for mankind; you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid what is wrong, and you believe in Allah. Had the people of earlier revelation believed, it would have been for their own good. Few of them are believers, while most of them are evildoers".

The "people of earlier revelation" are the Jews and Christians.

America, for many Muslims, is seen as a "Christian" country by default. Therefore, Christians (aka Crusaders) birthed a nasty, evil, Satanic nation and it continues to be viewed this way by not a few Muslims around the world but in particular, those who are bent towards suicide bombing attacks. They believe they are defending Islam- not from extinction- but from infiltration by the unholy world around them.

In order to make the point that America is in a war against Islam itself leaders like Al-Fahd ask the question: why doesn’t the United States go after other groups? And lists off such organizations as the Tamil Tigers, the IRA, the Mafia, and other such groups whose crimes do not include threats against the whole of the United States.

But for the young Muslim man who is looking to his religion for meaning and purpose, and who may already see America as an enemy for it’s support of Israel, this makes sense. America isn’t after terrorists- America is after ISLAM. The idea that most of the attacks against America over the past 20 plus years have come from Islamic extremist groups never occurs to him.

He is also given a laundry list of America’s attempts to rule the world by eradicating other groups of people: one hundred million native Americans exterminated; two million African-American slaves exterminated; Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Viet Nam war; etc. And in more recent times, the claims that American embargos and bombardments have killed one million Iraqi children; that thousands of newborn infants are born blind due to lack of insulin; and the list goes on and on.

But the problem with the laundry list is that it’s a supply of half (if that) of the actual story. So, while the media bombards a young Muslim male- who loves his religion and believes he should defend it as per Koranic edict- with images of Abu Ghraib and talks about the "rights" of those detained at GITMO- all of which makes it appear as if there really IS a war against Islam going on- the input of religious leaders only separates him even more from the society at large.

Taken all together, the only conclusion the young person can draw is that he must (or she must) defend their faith, if necessary, with their very lives. This is the stuff "martyrs" are made of. At least in the minds of those who believe that they must die in the cause of Allah lest the West take them over.

"Therefore, we must not be surprised that the Disbelievers are planning to destroy Islam and Muslims, because that is one of their main tasks, even though it is impossible for them to achieve, as their plot will always be exposed until the Day of Judgement. Allah (SWT) says: ‘We will test you in order to see who the Mujaahid (warrior) among you is and who are firm…’ [EMQ Muhammad, 47:31]"

To think that this will go away when those 18-29 are older, or gone, is wishful thinking. The war on terror is, by default, a war on Islam. Not only because of those Muslims who actively promote and encourage terrorism, but also because of those who sit passively by, content that THEY aren’t into such things, without realizing they, too, could be targets.

There is another generation to come. That generation will grow up to blow up, unless Muslims themselves do not take steps to stop it from happening. In April of 2007, MEMRI television disclosed the use of Mickey Mouse by Islamists in training children for Jihad. A transcript of the video makes it’s intention quite clear:

Host Saraa, a young girl: Sanabel, what will you do for the sake of the Al-Aqsa Mosque? How will you sacrifice your soul for the sake of Al-Aqsa? What will you do?

Sanabel, young girl on phone: I will shoot.

Farfour, a Mickey Mouse character in a tuxedo: Sanabel, what should we do if we want to liberate...

Sanable: We want to fight.

Farfour: We got that. What else?

Saraa: We want to...

Sanabel: We will annihilate the Jews.

Saraa: We are defending Al-Aqsa with our souls and our blood, aren't we, Sanabel?

Sanabel: I will commit martyrdom.

When polls coming out of the UK showed that a substantial minority of England’s Muslim population sympathized with the 7-7 bombers, others in western countries began to wonder: is that the attitude of Muslims here?

Pew Research recently published a report entitled: Muslim Americans- Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream. The report is already generating commentary. On the Glenn Beck show (5-23-07) the report was cited as a concern in terms of the numbers of Muslims who believed that suicide bombing in "defense of Islam" was sometimes justified.

The research survey is the first of it’s kind in the United States. Therefore, it becomes of interest to anyone who is concerned not only with our society in general, but with the very continuity of American life and liberty.

According to Pew Research and other sources, the estimated Muslim population within the United States is 2.35 million. Of that number, most appear to have immigrated to the U.S. Some 65% of those surveyed stated they were foreign born, with 24% of those coming from Arab countries and with the majority having immigrated here between 1990-1999.

Of those who are native-born (which constitutes 35% of all Muslims in America) some 21% were converts, or "reverts" to Islam. And most of those (20%) are African-American.

This demographic is disconcerting to some people. Especially in a post-911 world and, more specifically, given the fact that those who assaulted our country on 9-11 were of Arab descent. But there’s also concern about the conversion ratio amongst African-Americans who seem to be predominantly recruited from prisons. According to an article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, one out of every three African-Americans in federal prison are Muslim and converted while they were in prison.

According to RELIGIONLINK:

Today, African-American Muslims are among the fastest-growing segments of Islam, accounting for about 30 percent of all American Muslims.

The Pew survey found that more American Muslims reject radical Islam than do their counterparts in other countries. Yet oddly enough, the survey also noted that there was more acceptance of extremism among certain groups within the U.S. than within other U.S. groups of Muslims. The survey noted that fewer native-born African-American Muslims were willing to totally condemn Al Queda than other Muslims.

Part of the reason for the unwillingness to condemn a radical faction of Islam could have something to do with the type of Islam with which most African-American converts adhere. Nation of Islam and Wahhabism (which is spread by the Saudi’s) seem to be the two sects which draw mainly from the African-American community.

Both groups are known for their "in your face" history of violence.

The survey also found, however, that younger Muslims (15%), regardless of color or sect, are more likely than older Muslims (6%) to "express a strong sense of Muslim identity" and that suicide bombing, in defense of Islam, is sometimes justified.

The data becomes even more disconcerting. Of the Muslims under the age of thirty, not only do they show to be more religious than their older counter-parts, but 60% of younger respondents consider themselves to be MUSLIM FIRST, American, second. In contrast with French Muslims (46%) and British Muslims (50%), this is startling.

THE YOUTH OF ISLAM IN AMERICA?

The next generation of any group determines what their society will be like for many years to come.

According to the research, 50% of Muslims between 18-29 attend Mosque on a regular basis. Some 8% of those in the 18-29 bracket hold a positive view of Al Queda. This isn’t a coincidence. With most being Sunni and most (80%) believing the Koran is the Word of God and 50% opting for a literal reading of it’s text, there’s a potential making for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil again.

It should be noted that of the 19 who carried out the attacks on 9-11, fourteen were between the ages of 19-29. It should also be noted that Lindsey Germaine, a convert to Islam was only 19 when he carried out his 7-7 plans with co-conspirators Mohammed Siddique Khan (barely 30), Shezad Tanweer (22), and Hasib Hussein (18). If we look at the attacks it becomes clear that, with but a few exceptions, suicide bombers tend to be male, between 18-29, and very religious.

The survey also noted that of those between the ages of 18-29, some 61% believe the government should be involved in "protecting morality." This shows a marked trend towards acceptance and integration of Shariah Law for a majority of the younger Muslims surveyed.

LETTING THE NUMBERS SPEAK.

While it’s obvious that most American Muslims do not approve of the acts of terrorism going on today; and while many seem to genuinely like their lives in the United States, it also seems markedly clear that there is a potential danger facing us, not only from outside the United States, but from within our own borders.

Whittling down the numbers: of the estimated 2.3 million adult Muslims some 30% (or 705,000) fall between 18-29 years of age. Of that, 8% (or 56,000) believe suicide bombings in "defense of Islam" are warranted.

That may not sound like many. And of course, there may well be those who believe this but would never act on it. But how can we tell who will or will not?

Condemning all Muslims because of the few is unjustified. But to shrug off as insignificant the numbers of potential terrorists- all true believers in Islam (so they say) who believe they are doing Allah’s will, would be a grave mistake. We have to be right 100% of the time. They only have to be right once.

Whether you’re Muslim or non-Muslim, if it’s the shopping mall your wife is in; if it’s the daycare your child attends; or the business office your husband works in; one time is one time too many.

EndNotes

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

(2) Remarks by Pope Prompt Muslim Outrage, Protests Washington Post, Sept. 16, 2006, section A01

(3) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/540 Bounty Offered for Murdering Cartoonists Brussels Journal 12/04/2005 and the Daily Mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=405622&in_page_id=1770

The Pope must die, says Muslim Sept. 18, 2006

(4) http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

(5) Capitalism Magazine, Hate is not a Crime, Carter Laren, October 24, 2002

(http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=2024)

(6) ibid.

(7) Police blunder after 9/11 'destroyed pilot's career' London Times Online, Sept. 26, 2005 (example)

(8) 9/11: Five years later TYPECASTING MUSLIMS AS A RACE, Sunday, September 3, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/03/MNG4FKUMR71.DTL

(10) Protesters Accuse Bush of 'Exterminating the Muslim Race' Marc Morano, CNSNews.com,
January 20, 2005 "In cold, snowy Washington, about a hundred protesters gathered outside the "Black Tie and Boots" inaugural ball on Wednesday night, comparing President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler because Bush is "exterminating the Muslim race."

(11) Deseret News, June 4, 2005

(12) news.Scotsman.com Sept. 17., 2005, Burger King Recalls Sacrilegious Desserts

(13) harpers.org I’m Hatin It, interview with Rashad Akhtar, May 22, 2006

(14) December 28, 2004

(15) Thomas Klocek, July 2006

(16) CNS news, Sept. 5, 2006 Outrage As Australian Leaders Tell Muslims to Fit In

(17) AsiaNews.it Malaysian Muslims Offended by the Passion, April 5, 2004

(18) Ynetnews.com 12/07/05

(19) WorldWide Religious News, wwrn.org, Feb. 8, 2006, Muslims Offended By Rap Song

(20 post-gazette.com, March 6, 2006, Muslims Ask French to Cancel 1741 Play by Voltaire

(21) news10.net abc affiliate station, news 10, KXTV

(22) Middle-East-Online.com 8/2/2006 Muhammed Sculpture at Top of US Court draws rebuke from US Muslim Leaders

(23) ynetnews.com, Muslims Demand to Cancel Holocaust Day in UK Poses Threat to Western Values, 9/21/05

(24) jpost.com (Jerusalem Post), June 12, 2006, Italian Author to be Tried for Defaming Islam
(25) Al-Ahram Weekly, 27 Oct.-2 Nov. 2005, Calm Before the Storm

(26) The Sun, Sept. 21, 2006 thesun.co.uk

(27) MsMusings, Mar.10, 2005

(28) World Socialist Website, 12 Oct. 2005

(29) TheAge.com Oct. 24, 2005 Piggy Banks Offend Some UK Muslims

(30) WorldNetDaily.com Jan. 2006

(31) Distribution of the film was also inhibited because of concern over Muslim reactions. political gateway.com, Feb. 7, 2006; altmuslim.com, Movie Studio Not Amused By Muslim Themed Comedy Film

(32) daily mail.co.uk , Aug. 15, 2006

Recently the New York Police Department issued a ninety page report detailing information about terrorists and terrorism as a threat to American safety. Critics claim the report is too broad, so much so that it may cause nationwide paranoia without offering us any solid information by which to defend ourselves.

The report discusses a trajectory, a pattern of increased exposure and identification, noted in many of the terror-related cases over the past ten years. This pattern alleges a four-tier profile of activity:

1) Pre-radical life. The person’s life before exposure to “radical Islam” is pretty much indistinguishable from that of anyone else.

2) Self-Identification. The person becomes influenced, either by internal or external mechanisms; they begin to explore “Salafi Islam”.

3) Indoctrination. The person believes or adopts the Jihadi-Salifi teaching.

4) Jihadization. The person accepts their individual duty and self-identifies as a holy warrior of the mujahadeen.

All of that sounds well and good. But the report makes a damning statement about identifying potential terrorists:

“There is no useful profile to assist law enforcement or intelligence to predict who will follow this trajectory of radicalization.”

Really? I think once we stop the shell game (and shed some political correctness) we may see that identifying potential terrorists may not be as difficult as we think.

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME
Pardon me while I scoff and snort at those who would say Salafi is different from Wahhabism. Frankly, I don’t care if they find it offensive to be called Wahhabi. Salafi and Wahhabism are just two faces of the same coin.

Let’s follow the bunny trail.

Muhammed founded Islam. Keeping him company throughout his life were the Salaf, from which the name Salafi is derived. The Salaf were the ones who maintained the words of Mohammed and ultimately produced the Quran and the Hadith (along with the Sira and Tarikh). Since they were such close associates of Muhammed, we can assume they got things right.

In the 1700’s the Sunni patriarch, Muhammed Ibn Abd al-Wahhab began teaching the return to the original Islam as intended and recorded by the associates of Muhammed. Also known as the Salaf. Basically Wahhab taught that anything not officially mandated by Muhammed and Allah had no place in the Islamic belief. This meant a return to the Salaf. In other words: WAHABBISM is only the “pet” name or the derogatory name for Salafi Islam.

Distancing themselves from Osama bin Laden has been an on-going venture for Wahhabist Muslims. They say that bin Laden got his ideas from the writings of Sayyid Qutb, who visited the United States from 1958-1961 and, after having spent a whole three years here, came to the conclusion that our country was waging a moral war against Islam.

In a book called The Wahhabi Myth, the author tries to make this distinction:

“Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism but by the writings of the Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by President Nasser in 1966. Almost every fundamentalist movement in Sunni Islam has been strongly influenced by Qutb, so there is a good case for calling the violence that some of his followers commit Qutbian terrorism. Qutb urged his followers to withdraw from the moral and spiritual barbarism of modern society and fight it to the death.”

While Qutb’s writings no doubt encouraged bin Laden, ultimately the Quran and Hadith’s themselves would be the inspiration. To say that Salafi followers are practicing something that’s corrupted is creating a shell game. As noted on the Prophet of Doom website:

“In direct contradiction to all who apply the ‘radical’ label to the Islam of today's terrorists, the only way for Wahhab or Salaf Muslims to be practicing a corrupted version of Islam, is for Muhammad and his Companions to have gotten Islam wrong. And if that were true, the religion has no basis of any kind. The moment you come to grips with this simple, yet profound, truth, the connection between Islam and terror becomes clear.”

The clarity becomes frightening when one looks at from where the support for Wahhabist Islam cometh. And it begs the question: is our Government creating terror for us?

According to author Reza Safa, the government of Saudi Arabia has been importing Wahhabism to America and other countries to the tune of some $87 billion since 1973. Most of the “Islamicizing” of America comes from established organizations. The three most prominent are ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America); CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and the MSA (Muslim Student Association).

Supporting organizations include: American Muslim Council (AMC); American Muslim Alliance (AMA); Muslim American Society (MAS); the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSISS); and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) which operates some 324 plus mosques nationwide. 

In 2003 Stephen Schwartz testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security as to the links between Wahhabism/Salafi Islam and Saudi connections and aspirations to inundate American society with “radical Islam.”

Schwartz mentioned the goals of the Saudi importation:

“First, to control a significant group of Muslim believers.

Second, to use the Muslim community in the U.S. to pressure U.S. government and media, in the formulation of policy and in perceptions about Islam…

Third, to advance the overall Wahhabi agenda of ‘jihad against the world’ — an extremist campaign to impose the Wahhabi dispensation on the global Islamic community, as well as to confront the other religions.”

That Salafi/Wahhabist Muslims outnumber all other groups in the US isn’t a fluke. Although very few will likely call themselves Wahhabi (because of the implied tie to bin Laden) the shell game comes into play when you hear a person say “I am not Salafi! I am not Wahhab! I am just Muslim!”

They’re right. They’re all branches of the same corrupt tree: Sunni Islam. And what is the predominant sect in Saudi Arabia? Sunni, with over 70% of it’s population practicing Sunni.

God bless our little government! This isn’t news to them. It’s also not news to them that the type of Islam endorsed by the Saudi government just so happens to be a “radical” type. From a State Department report circa 2005:

“The majority of citizens [in Saudi Arabia] are Sunni Muslims who predominantly adhere to the very strict Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence. The Hanbali school is the strictest of Sunni Islam’s four legal schools. In addition, most Sunnis in the Kingdom subscribe to the tradition of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, an 18th century Muslim scholar belonging to the Hanbali school. For this reason, these individuals are often referred to by others as ‘Wahhabis.’ Most citizens, however, do not so describe themselves, preferring instead to say simply that they are ‘Muslims.’”

Gee, go figure.

So what have we got here? We have the end result of what happens when expediency meets political correctness: the inability to detect terrorists in our midst.

WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS AMONG US?
In July of this year, the FBI announced that they were introducing the STAR system, a database which collects information and assesses the information as a sort of profile of would-be terrorists. The system focuses primarily on foreign suspects but does look at US residents as well.

And of course, nobody will be “labeled” a terrorist. Even if he has a stock-pile of AK-47’s in his trunk, a computer with a layout of Kennedy Airport on the hard drive, bank receipts from CAIR, and a card reading “72 Virgins await you in heaven” signed by bin Laden himself. No, we must not label anyone, right?

We also have political correctness at the expense of the average man’s security coming from the Bush administration’s liberal critics, such as Paddy O’Leahy, who seems to think the administration gives a damn about my personal life:

“The Bush administration has expanded the use of this technology, often in secret, to collect and sift through Americans' most sensitive personal information…”

Sift away! You’ll discover I’m in menopause, that I’m not in the $200K classification of the “wealthy”, and that Mom and I share female pattern baldness.

The report introduces some aspects of identifying those susceptible to becoming indoctrinated into “radical” Islam. First of all, they pinpoint that the most susceptible are those who are second and third generation Muslims living in the west who are trying to find their roots.

But these guys aren’t looking for Kunta Kintay. They’re looking back in time to Mohammed- at least as close as they can get to what their founder REALLY believed and taught. And this, at least in the west, takes them back to the Salaf, aka, Wahabbist teachings courtesy of Saudi-sponsored Mosques and educational centers.

The report also points out that these potential terrorists live in enclaves dominated by Islam. These enclaves are patriarchal in nature in terms of Islamic belief and practice. And to make it more interesting, there seems to be no relationship to poverty here. One would think a life of poverty could lead one to not mind committing suicide for Allah if life in the hereafter were going to be better.

But this isn’t the case. And recent events surrounding a group of doctors and physician assistants who conspired to attack the United States seems to buttress the conclusion of the NYPD report. Of course, that’s not to say that all of the terrorists we’ve seen to date are necessarily well educated and middle class. Potential terrorists may well be culled from the less affluent. Which suddenly makes one wonder: do we really have any tell-tale attributes?

The report whittles down some characteristics:
> They tend to be under 35
> They’re local residents and citizens of western democracies.
> Varied ethnic backgrounds, often 2nd and 3rd generation western.
> Middle class backgrounds; not destitute.
> Educated, at least High school graduates and/or college students.
> Recent converts to Islam are particularly vulnerable.
> Don’t start out as radical nor even devout Muslims.
> Unremarkable- have ordinary lives and jobs.
> Little if any criminal record.

Congratulations NYPD. You have just identified a huge hunk of young Muslim America as potential terrorists.

It’s important to remember that there are influences. While the report talks about personal influences, both internal and external, it also discusses such things as the influences of spiritual leaders. Of course we here in the US have this bad habit of shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to “spiritual enemies.” We’d rather chase after Mel Gibson as an anti-semite than take a close look at some of the whacked out spiritual leaders here in the USA who are teaching crap to mush minds in our prisons, Mosques and yes, schools.

In the end, the report leaves us still wondering how in the world we can possibly pinpoint a would-be terrorist. With a majority of young Muslims fitting most or all of the above list, we are stymied: what if the terrorists decide to use older Muslims? Or children under age fifteen? Or women?

Let’s face it. We cannot possibly know who is, or is not, a potential terrorist until they get arrested for something. Or, until we get the gonads to actually start investigating- seriously investigating- NGO’s, bookstores, café’s, hookah bars, and internet café’s. We need to get the “Noble Quran” out of our schools and universities. And we need to start realizing that anyone who changes their name from Jack Smith to Muhammed Abd Bakiri is probably going to become an extremist.

Last, but not least, we need to realize that the Constitution protects the rights of those citizens who support it and defend it and those persons who abuse it’s existence in order to take over our nation and our lives.

And maybe, while we’re at it, we need to demand that our government stop sleeping with the enemy. Why in the world we tolerate the Saudi influence in America is beyond my comprehension. We’re supporting a country which violates human rights on more levels than can possibly be counted. A country which doesn’t afford Christians, Jews and other faiths the same freedom we afford Muslims to worship here in America. A country which backs and funds organizations known to be linked to terrorist organizations (can you say HOLY LAND FOUNDATION, CAIR, ISNA, NAIT?)

And for what? Some oil? Dancing girls? A lone military base in the middle of Camelass, Saudi Arabia?

America has been playing nice-nice with the House of Saud for fifty years. A 2000 report from the Middle East Policy Council makes it abundantly clear that our interests in Saudi Arabia have to change and change drastically. Where once we had a relationship with them which inhibited the propagation of Wahhabi/Salafi style Islam, now Saudi is the home base for it.

So how do we identify a potential terrorist in our midst? Simple: they’re a follower of Mohammed in the strictest sense. They’re Wahhabi-Salafi-Sunni and they’re funded by our dear friends, the Saudi government.

And we stupidly protect them.

SOURCES
daniel pipes

NYPD report

PEW research survey of American Muslims

Saudi Information

Sunni Information

Schwartz Testimony

Wahhabi Myth

MidEast Policy Council