President Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal at American University, August 5, 2015 — Videos

Posted on August 5, 2015. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, British History, Chemistry, Computers, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, history, Islam, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Middle East, Money, National Security Agency (NSA), Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Religious, Resources, Science, Security, Shite, Spying, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Technology, Television, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

President Obama FULL SPEECH on Iran Nuclear Deal – “Rejecting Iran nuclear deal is a vote for war”

President Obama Iran Nuclear Deal Press Conference July 15, 2015 [FULL]

Iran nuclear news -nuclear disasters! Netanyahu Iran nuke deal – see now!

PM Netanyahu – Why We Must Oppose the Iran Deal

The Iran Nuclear Deal

Is the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran a good or bad deal? Would it be harder or easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would it make Iran and its terror proxies stronger or weaker? Should the U.S. Congress support or defeat the deal? Dennis Prager answers these questions and more.

Top three political realities of the Iran nuclear deal

Eric Shawn Reports: The Iran Deal’s details

Senate Hearing on Iran Nuclear Deal

House Hearing on Iran Nuclear Deal

Will the Iran nuclear agreement work?

Ted Cruz: Iran Deal a ‘Catastrophic Mistake’ (July 15, 2015) | Charlie Rose

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) questions on Iran Nuclear Deal (C-SPAN)

Sen. Ted Cruz: Any president worth his salt would overturn Iran deal

Donald Trump on nuke deal: They are laughing at us in Iran

Federal Prosecutor: Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal Clearly Treason

Mark Levin gives his commentary regarding the hearing on Iran nuclear deal (audio from 07-29-2015)

Mark Levin: Barack Obama has planted the seeds for World War III (audio from 07-14-2015)

The Savage Nation- Michael Savage- Wed, August 5, 2015 (1st Hour)

The Godfather – Sollozzo Known As The Turk 4/10 (HD)

The Godfather – Michael shoots Sollozzo and McCluskey

Godfather-Meeting of the five families

Iran Nuclear Agreement: The Administration’s Case

Full text: Obama gives a speech about the Iran nuclear deal

President Obama is continuing his push for the Iran nuclear deal, giving a speech at American University. Here is a complete transcript of his remarks.

OBAMA: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you so much. Thank you. Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you very much.

I apologize for the slight delay; even presidents have a problem with toner.

(LAUGHTER)

It is a great honor to be back at American University, which has prepared generations of young people for service and public life.

I want to thank President Kerwin and the American University family for hosting us here today.

Fifty-two years ago, President Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War, addressed this same university on the subject of peace. The Berlin Wall had just been built. The Soviet Union had tested the most powerful weapons ever developed. China was on the verge of acquiring the nuclear bomb. Less than 20 years after the end of World War II, the prospect of nuclear war was all too real.

With all of the threats that we face today, it is hard to appreciate how much more dangerous the world was at that time. In light of these mounting threats, a number of strategists here in the United States argued we had to take military action against the Soviets, to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. But the young president offered a different vision.

OBAMA: Strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. But he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign-policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing.

Instead, he promised strong, principled American leadership on behalf of what he called a practical and attainable peace, a peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements.

Such wisdom would help guide our ship of state through some of the most perilous moments in human history. With Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully.
Under Democratic and Republican presidents, new agreements were forged: A nonproliferation treaty that prohibited nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, while allowing them to access peaceful nuclear energy, the SALT and START treaties, which bound the United States and the Soviet Union to cooperation on arms control.

Not every conflict was averted, but the world avoided nuclear catastrophe, and we created the time and the space to win the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets.

The agreement now reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled policy diplomacy.

After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb. It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program.

As was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems. It certainly doesn’t resolve all our problems with Iran. It does not ensure a warming between our two countries. But it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. As such, it is a very good deal.

Today, I want to speak to you about this deal and the most consequential foreign-policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of Iraq, as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world. Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.

Now, when I ran for president eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war. We had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place.
It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.

Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history.

OBAMA: And, of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive while dismissing those who disagreed as weak, even appeasers of a malevolent adversary.

More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq. Our troops achieved every mission they were given, but thousands of lives were lost, tens of thousands wounded. That doesn’t count the lives lost among Iraqis. Nearly a trillion dollars was spent.

Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaida in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.

I raise this recent history because now more than ever, we need clear thinking in our foreign policy, and I raise this history because it bears directly on how we respond to the Iranian nuclear program. That program has been around for decades, dating back to the Shah’s efforts, with U.S. support, in the 1960s and ’70s to develop nuclear power. The theocracy that overthrew the Shah accelerated the program after the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, a war in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to brutal effect, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced steadily through the 1990s despite unilateral U.S. sanctions.

When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb, that were spinning to enrich uranium. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges and showed no inclination to slow, much less halt, its program.
Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups like Hezbollah and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to nonproliferation that the world has done so much to defend.

The question then is not whether to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how. Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it’s been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options, on the table to achieve that objective.

But I have also made clear my preference for a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the issue, not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable and durable resolution. And so in 2009, we let the Iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. Iran failed to take that path, and our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility at Fordo.

Now some have argued that Iran’s intransigence showed the futility of negotiations. In fact, it was our very willingness to negotiate that helped America rally the world to our cause and secured international participation in an unprecedented framework of commercial and financial sanctions.

OBAMA: Keep in mind, unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran had been in place for decades, but had failed to pressure Iran to the negotiating table. What made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon new U.N. Security Council resolutions, combining strong enforcement with voluntary agreements for nations like China and India, Japan and South Korea, to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, as well as the imposition by our European allies of a total oil embargo.
Winning this global buy-in was not easy. I know; I was there. In some cases, our partners lost billions of dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate. But we were able to convince them that, absent a diplomatic resolution, the result could be war with major disruptions to the global economy, and even greater instability in the Middle East.

In other words, it was diplomacy, hard, painstaking diplomacy, not saber rattling, not tough talk, that ratcheted up the pressure on Iran. With the world now unified beside us, Iran’s economy contracted severely, and remains about 20 percent smaller today than it would have otherwise been. No doubt this hardship played a role in Iran’s 2013 elections, when the Iranian people elected a new government, that promised to improve the economy through engagement to the world.

A window had cracked open. Iran came back to the nuclear talks. And after a series of negotiations, Iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal, a deal that rolled back Iran’s stockpile of near 20 percent enriched uranium, and froze the progress of its program so that the P5+1 — the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the European Union, could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that Iran might be stalling for time.

Now, let me pause here just to remind everybody that, when the interim deal was announced, critics, the same critics we are hearing from now, called it a historic mistake. They insisted Iran would ignore its obligations, they warned that the sanctions would unravel. They warned that Iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism.

The critics were wrong. The progress of Iran’s nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade, its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced, the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped, inspections did increase. There was no flood of money into Iran. And the architecture of the international sanctions remained in place. In fact, the interim deal worked so well that the same people who criticized it so fiercely now cite it as an excuse not to support the broader accord. Think about that. What was once proclaimed as an historic mistake is now held up as a success and a reason to not sign the comprehensive of deal.
So keep that in mind when you assess the credibility of the arguments being made against diplomacy today. Despite the criticism, we moved ahead to negotiate a more lasting, comprehensive deal. Our diplomats, led by Secretary of State John Kerry kept our coalition united, our nuclear experts, including one of the best in the world, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, work tirelessly on a technical details.

In July, we reached a comprehensive of plan of action that meets our objectives. Under its terms, Iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon. And while Iran, like any party to the nuclear non- proliferation treaty, is allowed to access peaceful nuclear energy, the agreement strictly defines the manner in which its nuclear program can proceed, ensuring that all pathways to a bomb are cut off.

OBAMA: Here is how.

Under this deal, Iran cannot acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. The core of its heavy reactor at Arak will be pulled out, filled with concrete, replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. The spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country, and Iran will not build any new heavy water reactors for at least 15 years.

Iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for a bomb. As soon as this deal is implemented, Iran will remove two-thirds of its centrifuges. For the next decade, Iran will not enrich uranium with its more advanced centrifuges. Iran will not enrich uranium at the previously undisclosed Fordo facility, which is very deep underground, for at least 15 years.

Iran will get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs for the next 15 years. Even after those 15 years have passed, Iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon, and in fact this deal shuts off the type of covert path Iran pursued in the past.

There will be 24/7 monitoring of Iran’s key nuclear facilities. For decades, inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, from the uranium mines and mills where they get raw materials to the centrifuge production facilities where they make machines to enrich it. And understand why this is so important.
For Iran to cheat, it has to build a lot more than just one building or covert facility like Fordo. It would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. No nation in history has been able to pull of such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. And under the terms of the deal, inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in Iran.

And finally, Iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. Before getting sanctions relief, Iran has to take significant concrete steps, like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stock piles. If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council, America can trigger snap back on our own.

On the other hand, if Iran abides by the deal, and its economy beings to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snap back will only grow.

So this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives, this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated, and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents support it.

I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls, it’s not even close. Unfortunately, we’re living through a time in American politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prison, evaluated by headline-grabbing soundbites, and so before the ink was even dry on this deal, before Congress even read it, a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition. Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientists…
(LAUGHTER)

… disputing the assessments of experts like Secretary Moniz, challenging his findings, offering multiple and sometimes contradictory arguments about why Congress should reject this deal.

OBAMA: But if you repeat these arguments long enough, they can get some traction. So, let me address just a few of the arguments that have been made so far in opposition to this deal.

First, there’re those who say the inspections are not strong enough, because inspectors can’t go anywhere in Iran at any time with no notice.

Well, here’s the truth. Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites.

If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours notice.

And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in.

And — and by the way, nuclear material isn’t something you hide in the closet.

(LAUGHTER)

It can leave a trace for years.

The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will.

Second, there are those who argue that the deal isn’t strong enough, because some of the limitations on Iran’s civilian nuclear program expire in 15 years.

Let me repeat. The prohibition on Iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. The ban on weapons-related research is permanent. Inspections are permanent.

It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran’s peaceful program last only 15 years. But that’s how arms control agreements work. The first SALT treaty with the Soviet Union lasted five years. The first START treaty lasted 15 years.

And in our current situation, if 15 or 20 years from now, Iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the United States will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond and the same options available to stop our weapons program as we have today, including, if necessary, military options.
On the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios that critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now. By killing this deal, Congress would not merely Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it.

Third, a number of critics say the deal isn’t worth it, because Iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

Now, let’s be clear. The international sanctions were put in place precisely to get Iran to agree to constraints on its program. That’s the point of sanctions. Any negotiated agreement with Iran would involve sanctions relief.

So an argument against sanctions relief is effectively an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue. It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money, revenue frozen overseas by other countries.

But the notion that this will be a game-changer with all this money funneled into Iran’s pernicious activities misses the reality of Iran’s current situation.

Partly because of our sanctions, the Iranian government has over half a trillion dollars in urgent requirements, from funding pensions and salaries to paying for crumbling infrastructure.

Iran’s leaders have raised expectations of their people, that sanctions relief will improve their lives. Even a repressive regime like Iran’s cannot completely ignore those expectations, and that’s why our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people.

Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to.

OBAMA: We have no illusions about the Iranian government or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.
They tried to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, Iran even engaged in these sanctions in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war, a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit Iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon.

Moreover, there is no scenario where sanctions relief turns Iran into the region’s dominant power. Iran’s defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our Gulf allies. Their conventional capabilities will never compare to Israel’s, and our commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge helps guarantee that.

Over the last several years, Iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support its only ally in the Arab world, Bashar al-Assad, even as he’s lost control of huge chunks of his country. And Hezbollah suffered significant blows on this same battlefield. And Iran, like the rest of the region, is being forced to respond to the threat of ISIL in Iraq.

So, contrary to the alarmists who claim Iran is on the brink of taking over the Middle East, or even the world, Iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges. The ruling regime is dangerous and it is repressive. We will continue to have sanctions in place on Iran’s support for terrorism and violation of human rights. We will continue to insist upon the release of Americans detained unjustly. We will have a lot of differences with the Iranian regime.

But if we are serious about confronting Iran’s destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we are concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber attack or a ballistic missile, by improving the interdiction of weapons’ shipments that go to groups like Hezbollah, by training our allies’ special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like Yemen.
All these capabilities will make a difference. We will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal.

And by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL.

Now, the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had. We should get a better deal. That is repeated over and over again. It’s a bad deal — we need a better deal.

(LAUGHTER)

One that relies on vague promises of toughness and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the Iranian regime harder. Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society, or they are not being straight with the American people. Sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure, even aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. That, is oftentimes, is what the critics are calling a better deal.

OBAMA: Neither the Iranian government, or the Iranian opposition, or the Iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty.

Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn’t based on a desire for regime change in Iran.

As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress’ rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling.

If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world’s largest banks. We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. That’s part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived.
What’s more likely to happen should Congress reject this deal is that Iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal. So in that sense, the critics are right. Walk away from this agreement, and you will get a better deal — for Iran.

(APPLAUSE)

Now because more sanctions won’t produce the results that the critics want, we have to be honest. Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option, another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative, I am stating a fact. Without this deal, Iran will be in a position, however tough our rhetoric may be, to steadily advance its capabilities. Its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities? And as someone who does firmly believe that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon and who has wrestled with this issue since the beginning of my presidency, I can tell you that alternatives to military actions will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports.

So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.

OBAMA: And here’s the irony. As I said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That’s not just my supposition. Every estimate, including those from Israeli analysts, suggest military action would only set back Iran’s program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal.

It would likely guarantee that inspectors are kicked out of Iran. It is probable that it would drive Iran’s program deeper underground. It would certainly destroy the international unity that we have spent so many years building.
Now, there are some of opponents — I have to give them credit. They’re opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran’s facilities will be quick and painless.

But if we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple.

(APPLAUSE)

The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences.

We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less-than-1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war.

As commander-in-chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of young Americans into combat. I have sat by their bedside sometimes when they come home.

I’ve ordered military action in seven countries. There are times when force is necessary, and if Iran does not abide by this deal, it’s possible that we don’t have an alternative.

But how can we, in good conscience, justify war before we’ve tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives, that has been agreed to by Iran, that is supported by the rest of the world and that preserves our option if the deal falls short? How could we justify that to our troops? How could we justify that to the world or to future generations? In the end, that should be a lesson that we’ve learned from over a decade of war. On the front end, ask tough questions, subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis, resist the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war, worry less about being labeled weak, worry more about getting it right.

I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously.

But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those…
(APPLAUSE)

In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

(APPLAUSE)

The majority of the Iranian people have powerful incentives to urge their government to move in a different, less provocative direction, incentives that are strengthened by this deal. We should offer them that chance. We should give them the opportunity.

OBAMA: It’s not guaranteed to succeed. But if they take it, that would be good for Iran. It would be good for the United States. It would be good for a region that has known too much conflict. It would be good for the world.

And if Iran does not move in that direction, if Iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. You know, the agreements pursued by Kennedy and Reagan with the Soviet Union. Those agreements and treaties involved America accepting significant constraints on our arsenal. As such, they were riskier.

This agreement involves no such constraints. The defense budget of the United States is more than $600 billion. To repeat, Iran’s is about $15 billion. Our military remains the ultimate backstop to any security agreement that we make. I have stated that Iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and have done what is necessary to make sure our military options are real. And I have no doubt that any president who follows me will take the same position.

So, let me sum up here. When we carefully examine the arguments against this deal, none stand up to scrutiny. That may be why the rhetoric on the other side is so strident. I suppose some of it can be ascribed to knee-jerk partisanship that has become all too familiar, rhetoric that renders every decision made to be a disaster, a surrender. You’re aiding terrorists; you’re endangering freedom.

On the other hand, I do think it is important to a knowledge another more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or at least skepticism to this deal. And that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally Israel. An affinity that, as someone who has been a stalwart friend to Israel throughout my career, I deeply share.

When the Israeli government is opposed to something, people in the United States take notice; and they should. No one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with the government like Iran’s, which includes leaders who deny the Holocaust, embrace an ideology of anti-Semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are arrayed on Israel’s borders. Are pointed at Tel Aviv.

In such a dangerous neighbor Israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly insists it cannot depend on any other country, even it’s great friend the United States, for its own security.

So, we have to take seriously concerns in Israel. But the fact is, partly due to American military and intelligence assistance, which my administration has provided at unprecedented levels, Israel can defend itself against any conventional danger, whether from Iran directly or from its proxies. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran changes that equation.

And that’s why this deal must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal does exactly that. I say this as someone who is done more than any other president to strengthen Israel’s security. And I have made clear to the Israeli government that we are prepared to discuss how we can deepen that cooperation even further. Already, we have held talks with Israel on concluding another 10-year plan for U.S. security assistance to Israel.

OBAMA: We can enhance support for areas like missile defense, information sharing, interdiction, all to help meet Israel’s pressing security needs. And to provide a hedge against any additional activities that Iran may engage in as a consequence of sanctions relief.

But I have also listened to the Israeli security establishment, which warned of the danger posed by a nuclear armed Iran for decades. In fact, they helped develop many of the ideas that ultimately led to this deal. So to friends of Israel and the Israeli people, I say this. A nuclear armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief.
I recognize that prime minister Netanyahu disagrees, disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America’s interests and Israel’s interests, and as president of the United States it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.

I do not believe that would be the right thing to do for the United States, I do not believe it would be the right thing to do for Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

For the last couple of weeks, I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one. What I’ve heard instead are the same types of arguments that we heard in the run up to the Iraq war. “Iran cannot be dealt with diplomatically.” “We can take military strikes without significant consequences.” “We shouldn’t worry about what the rest of the world thinks, because once we act, everyone will fall in line.” “Tougher talk, more military threats will force Iran into submission.” “We can get a better deal.”

I know it’s easy to play in people’s fears, to magnify threats, to compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich, but none of these arguments hold up. They didn’t back in 2002, in 2003, they shouldn’t now.

(APPLAUSE)

That same mind set in many cases offered by the same people, who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong…

(LAUGHTER)

… lead to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decades before or since. It’s a mind set out of step with the traditions of American foreign policy where we exhaust diplomacy before war and debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth.

“Peace is not the absence of conflict,” President Reagan once said. It is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. President Kennedy warned Americans not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than the exchange of threats. It is time to apply such wisdom. The deal before us doesn’t bet on Iran changing, it doesn’t require trust, it verifies and requires Iran to forsake a nuclear weapon.
OBAMA: Just as we struck agreements with the Soviet Union at a time when they were threatening our allies, arming proxies against us, proclaiming their commitment to destroy our way of life, and had nuclear weapons pointed at all of our major cities, a genuine existential threat.

You know, we live in a complicated world, a world in which the forces unleashed by human innovation are creating for our children that were unimaginable for most of human history.

It is also a world of persistent threats, a world in which mass violence and cruelty is all too common and human innovation risks the destruction of all that we hold dear.

In this world, the United States of America remains the most powerful nation on Earth, and I believe that we will remain such for decades to come.

But we are one nation among many, and what separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional, is not the mere fact of our military might.

Since World War II, the deadliest war in human history, we have used our power to try and bind nations together in a system of international law. We have led an evolution of those human institutions President Kennedy spoke about to prevent the spread of deadly weapons, to uphold peace and security and promote human progress.

We now have the opportunity to build on that progress. We built a coalition and held together through sanctions and negotiations, and now we have before us a solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without resorting to war.

As Americans, we should be proud of this achievement. And as members of Congress reflect on their pending decision, I urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, consider the stakes involved with the vote that you will cast.

If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran’s nuclear deal or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility is the anchor of the international system.
John F. Kennedy cautioned here more than 50 years ago at this university that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war. But it’s so very important. It is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world so full of strife.

My fellow Americans, contact your representatives in Congress, remind them of who we are, remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for so that we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children.

Thank you very much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Is WordPress Censoring My Post Entitled: An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man–Videos

Posted on March 9, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Culture, Education, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Technology, Video, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

First let me say I am a big fan and promoter of WordPress and actually teach college students blogging and the use of WordPress.

When one of my past blog posts suddenly gets ten or more hits, I usually look at the post to see what I wrote and what videos I included.

I do this because over time a number of videos that I embed in the page may have been removed by YouTube and appear as a black sceen. I usually delete them.

Also, I may want to update and expand the post and add new tags and/or categories.

Unfortunately, something very odd is happening with one of my post pertaining to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, September 11, 2011, Islam–it is  not being displayed!
An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

While I can still view what I posted in edit view, you cannot view the post on WordPress  except for the title of the post.

Apparently, someone at WordPress has censored my post by not allowing visitors to my blog to see the entire blog post.

Did some group put pressure on WordPress to do this?

I for one want to know exactly what is going on here?

I strongly suspect the inclusion of–Fitna – The Geert Wilders Movie– was the reason why the entire post was censored by WordPress.

YouTube did remove the two  Fitna clips that I had embedded in the blog post and they are displayed as a black screen.

However, you can still view one of the clips on YouTube provided you sign in.

I have included the first part of the video below:

Fitna – The Geert Wilders Movie

Shame on WordPress for not displaying the entire post.

Therefore, I am going to repost the entire post again below and I have added a number of new tags or keywords.

UPDATED AND EXPANDED


 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:911_-_FEMA_-_WTC_impacts_%28graphic%29.png

Fitna (English) Part 1/2 (Full 16min version)

Bill Whittle: Ground Zero Mosque Reality Check

A “Real” Commencement Speech

“O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).”

~Quran, 9:123

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

~Winston Churchill

American Airlines flight number 11 left gate B32 and took off from Boston’s Logan International airport at 7:59 a.m bound for Los Angeles.

At about 8:46:40 local time, all 92 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 were killed as it crashed into the North Tower (Tower 1) of the World Trade Center.

Then at 9:03 a.m. United Airlines Flight 175 bound from Boston’s Logan International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport crashes into the South Tower (Tower 2) killing 65 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers.

Shortly thereafter at 9:35 a.m. American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon killing all 64 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers aboard as well as 125 in the Pentagon.

The only aircraft that did not reach its intended target, the United States Capital building in Washington D.C., was United Airlines Flight 93 bound from Newark International Airport to San Francisco International Airport.

Four Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorists hijacked the plane about forty minutes into the flight. However, several passengers tried to take back the aircraft from the terrorists.

All 44 passengers and crew including the 4 Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorists died at about 10:03 a.m.when the plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

Several hundred people choose to jump to their deaths from both towers to escape from the intense fire and choking smoke in both buildings captured in the “Falling Man” photo and recounted in the 9/11 The Falling Man documentary on YouTube and “The Falling Man” online article in Esquire Magazine:

Credit: The Falling Man, a photograph by Richard Drew for the Associated Press.

9/11 The Falling Man

The Falling Man

By Tom Junod

“…They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building’s fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors — the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. …”

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN#ixzz0xXdfVMZa

http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN

People watching the burning towers from surrounding streets were horrified at what they were witnessing as hundreds from all sides of the two towers jumped to their certain deaths to escape the flames and smoke.

After burning for fifty-six minutes the South Tower of the World Trade Center fell at 9:58.

Thirty minutes later the North Tower fell.

Less than two hours from the time the two jet passenger airliners crashed into World Trade Center towers, both buildings had collapsed.

Killed that day were nearly three thousand people from over 70 countries that were in and around the buildings that were destroyed or damaged including over three hundred New York City fireman and policemen who responded to the explosions and fires in the buildings.

Al-Qaeda’s Islamic Wahhabi jihad or struggle by the sword arrived with a vengeance in the United States on September 11, 2001.

Al-Qaeda is a radical network of militants who call for a global jihad or armed struggle with those not of the Islamic faith, including Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.

Most Al-Qaeda jihadists are from the Sunni branch of Islam and from the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect established in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda wants to establish a new Islamic Caliphate or leader for the Muslim community or Ummah under Sharia or Islamic law. However, Muslims differ as to the interpretation of Sharia or Islamic law.

The two main branches of Islam are Sunni and Shia. The largest branch of Islam is Sunni who comprise between 87% to 90% of all Muslems worldwide according to the Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The smaller Shia branch of Islam comprises between 10% and 13% of the all Muslims worldwide and who are are primarily located in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and India. Arabs are primarily Sunni and Iranians or Persians are primarily Shia. There are both Sunni and Shia jihadists who use suicide bombers to attack infidels or those of another religious faith mainly Christians, Jews and Hindus.

However, neither Arabs nor Iranians are the largest populations of Muslims. The countries with the largest Muslim populations include Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. In 2010 the world’s population is nearly 7 billion of which nearly 1.6 billion are Muslims or over 22% of the world’s population. There are over 50 countries with a Muslim majority and 57 countries comprising the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) .

The United States with a population of 310 million has a relatively small Muslim population of about 3 million or roughly 1% of the total population of the United States in 2010. The Al-qaeda attackers came primarily from Saudi Arabia with a Muslim population of about 25 million or less than 2% of the world’s Muslim population.

The nineteen Al-Qaeda terrorists were religious fanatics of the Sunni Islam Wahhabi sect, including fifteen Saudi nationals. The Al-Qaeda jihadists had hijacked four commercial airline passenger jets in a coordinated attack on the American people and the United States of America.

The death toll from the Islamic Wahhabi jihad attack on America on September 11, 2001 was 2,995 including the nineteen al-Qaeda terrorist hijackers. There were more deaths on September 11, 2001, than the 2350 deaths, mostly members of the United States Navy and Army, from the surprise Imperial Japanese Navy attack on the United States Navy Pacific fleet docked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Nearly nine years later a so-called “moderate” Muslem cleric, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, wants to build a thirteen story Islamic community center and mosque less than three blocks from ground zero, the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers.

The planned site for the Islamic community center and mosque is 45-51 Park Place, called Park 51, is two and half block north and 560 feet from the northern boundary of the World Trade Center site at Vesey street.

Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg

Few Americans dispute the property owners’ right to construct such a building provided all city, state and Federal laws are complied with including local zoning laws and receipt of the necessary building permits.

Few Americans dispute the rights of all Americans to practice their religious faith.

Few Americans oppose the exercise of free speech.

The vast majority of Americans, however, consider the proposed community center and mosque to be an insulting affront to the families and friends of those who died on September 11, 2001.

Just because you can do something, does not mean you should.

In fact the Islamic religion considers such an action to be mischief-making or a fitna, a deliberate provocation against the infidels, those not of the Islamic faith including Christians and Jews.

The site of the World Trade Center and the immediate surrounding area is considered hallowed ground for it is the final resting place or cemetery for many of those who died on September 11, 2001 and whose remains were never found.

The American people demand that this Islamic community center and mosque be moved to another location in New York City.

Otherwise, those behind the building of such an insulting affront to the American people will only receive the rightful indignation and shunning they justly deserve and will soon be exposed for who and what they are–stealth jihadists.

Extreme jidahists can be Sunni or Shia and overt militarist jihadists like those of September 11, 2010 or covert stealth jihadists that want to replace the United States Constitution and American law with Sharia or Islamic law and our representative republic with a theocracy.

Stealth jihadists speak of toleration when speaking to infidels or non-believers in Islam

When the jihadists speak to their fellow Muslims, they speak of Islamic global supremacy and return of the Caliphate under Sharia or Islamic law.

Religious toleration has it limits even in the United States. Toleration should be a two-way street. Toleration does not extend to evil. Toleration is not a suicide pact. Yet Saudi Arabia has zero toleration or an absolute ban for any church, temple or synagogue being built in Saudi Arabia and bans all non-believers in Islam from the city of Mecca.

Sharia is a direct and immediate threat to liberty of the American people. The jihadists seek to replace American law and the United States Constitution with Sharia or Islamic law.

Sharia or Islamic law should be banned from the United States and those immigrants advocating it should be deported to their country of origin.

Saudi Arabia funds Islamic community centers and mosques throughout the United States where both militarist and stealth jihadists are cultivated and supported. The majority of terrorist attacks in the last decade have come from extreme Islamic jihadists, from both the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam and with support and encouragement of local mosques and their Imam.

Authors, journalists, politicians and television and talk radio show hosts such as Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Andrew C. McCarthy, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage are among those who expose the threat posed by the militarist and stealth jihadists. However, those commenting upon the threat posed by the jihadists are quickly labeled by the jihadists, their supporters and mainstream media as engaging in hate speech and accused of being racists and Islamophobes, having prejudice or bias against those of the Islam faith or Moslems. This is especially true when the Quran and actual speeches and words of the jihadists are quoted or made available for viewing on the Internet at such sites as YouTube.

The American people will remember September 11, 2001 and never forget the fallen. The American people will honor their memories by stopping the ground zero mosque and the militant and stealth jihadists of the sword whether they be Sunni or Shia. The American people will defend their country and their liberty.

 

 

Imam Rauf Exposed, Elimination of Israel, Terrorist Supporting, N’ Word

Newt Gingrich: No Ground Zero Mosque

Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia – It is” totally abhorrent to the Western World”

ADDED And UPDATED March 3, 2011

Frank Gaffney: Jihad By Other Means

 

“…At fifteen seconds after 9:41 a.m., on September 11, 2001, a photographer named Richard Drew took a picture of a man falling through the sky — falling through time as well as through space. The picture went all around the world, and then disappeared, as if we willed it away. One of the most famous photographs in human history became an unmarked grave, and the man buried inside its frame — the Falling Man — became the Unknown Soldier in a war whose end we have not yet seen. …”

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN#ixzz0xXepMmJc

REVISED AND EXPANDED ON MAY 1 and 5, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 26:May 5, 2011

On May 1, 2011 the President of The United States of America made the following announcement:

President Obama FULL Speech – Osama Bin Laden DEAD – Complete

 

Osama Bin Laden is Killed in Pakistan – 1st May 2011

 

 

CNN: How U.S. found, killed Osama bin Laden

 

“The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done,”

Former President George W. Bush 

NYC reacts to Osama bin Laden’s death 

 

CNN: Big crowds cheer at White House

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead – What Was Pakistan’s Part – 1st May 2011

US kills Osama bin Laden decade after 9/11 attacks

“…Osama bin Laden, the face of global terrorism and architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was killed in a firefight with elite American forces Monday, then quickly buried at sea in a stunning finale to a furtive decade on the run.

Long believed to be hiding in caves, bin Laden was tracked down in a costly, custom-built hideout not far from a Pakistani military academy. The stunning news of his death prompted relief and euphoria outside the White House and around the globe, yet also deepening fears of terrorist reprisals against the United States and its allies.

“Justice has been done,” President Barack Obama said late Sunday from the White House in an announcement that seemed sure to lift his own political standing.

The military operation took mere minutes, and there were no U.S. casualties.

U.S. Blackhawk helicopters ferried about two dozen troops from Navy SEAL Team Six, a top military counter-terrorism unit, into the compound identified by the CIA as bin Laden’s hideout — and back out again in less than 40 minutes. Bin Laden was shot in the head, officials said, after he and his bodyguards resisted the assault.

Three adult males were also killed in the raid, including one of bin Laden’s sons, whom officials did not name. One of bin Laden’s sons, Hamza, is a senior member of al-Qaida. U.S. officials also said one woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant, and two other women were injured.

The U.S. official who disclosed the burial at sea said it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains. Obama said the remains had been handled in accordance with Islamic custom, which requires speedy burial. …”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden

 

Background Articles and Videos

Bitter Debate at Ground Zero

Added March 9, 2011

Dueling Protests over Ground Zero Mosque

Leader of Ground Zero Mosque Refuses To Disclose Source Of Funding

Ground Zero Mosque 9/11 Liars for Islam, Muhammad said you can lie: Taqiyya

Radical Islam: Saudi Wahhabism responsible for worldwide terror

Robert Spencer on Hannity exposes Imam Rauf on Ground Zero Mosque

Robert Spencer Jihad Watch

Jihad on Campus – Saudis’ Multi-Million Dollar PR Agenda]

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (1 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (2 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (3 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (4 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (5 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (6 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (7 of 7)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (1 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (2 of 6)

]

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (3 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (4 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (5 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (6 of 6)

Andy McCarthy Discusses The Ground Zero Mosque

Andy McCarthy – The Grand Jihad (5.24.10)

 

ADDED March 9, 2011

 Andrew McCarthy: “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America”

 

Andy McCarthy Discusses The Ground Zero Mosque

 

Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy

Andy McCarthy: “What We Call Terrorism, They Don’t”

First Friday – Andrew C. McCarthy – America’s War on Terror…or is It?

Michael Savage Gets Pissed Off About Jihadists and Terrorism

annity 05/04/2010 w/ Mark Levin

REVISED AND EXPANDED ON MAY 1, 2011

Steve Coll on The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century

The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-1/6

 

 

The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-2/6

 

The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-3/6

 

The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-4/6

 

The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-5/6

 

The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-6/6 

Conversations with History: Steve Coll

September 11 Attacks

The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[1][2] The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights.

The death toll of the attacks was 2,995, including the 19 hijackers.[3] The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.[4] In addition, there is at least one secondary death – one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the World Trade Center’s collapse.[5]

The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terrorism. It invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists. The United States also enacted the USA PATRIOT Act. Many other countries also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Some American stock exchanges stayed closed for the rest of the week following the attack and posted enormous losses upon reopening, especially in the airline and insurance industries. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of office space caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan.

The damage to the Pentagon was cleared and repaired within a year, and the Pentagon Memorial was built adjacent to the building. The rebuilding process has started on the World Trade Center site. In 2006 a new office tower was completed on the site of 7 World Trade Center. 1 World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and, at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2013, it will become one of the tallest buildings in North America. Three more towers were originally expected to be built between 2007 and 2012 on the site. Ground was broken for the Flight 93 National Memorial on November 8, 2009, and the first phase of construction is expected to be ready for the 10th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2011.[6] …”

American Airlines Flight 11

American Airlines Flight 11 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport. It was hijacked by five al-Qaedan terrorists and deliberately crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers injured at least three people, forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer. Mohamed Atta, a known member of al-Qaeda,[1][2] and trained as a pilot, took over the controls. Air traffic controllers noticed the flight was in distress when the crew stopped responding to them. They realized the flight had been hijacked when Atta mistakenly transmitted announcements for passengers to air traffic control. On board, two flight attendants contacted American Airlines, and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.

The aircraft crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 local time; the impact killed all 92 people aboard, including the hijackers, plus an unconfirmed number of people in the buildings impact zone. Many people in the streets witnessed the collision, and the Naudet brothers captured the impact on video, as did Pavel Hlava. Mark Burnback and Wolfgang Staehle had a webcam set up that captured the impact through a series of photographs. Before the hijacking was confirmed, news agencies began to report on the incident and speculated that the crash had been an accident. The impact and subsequent fire caused the North Tower to collapse, which resulted in thousands of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified dozens of remains from Flight 11 victims (see section Aftermath below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

American Airlines Flight 77

“…American Airlines Flight 77 was the third flight hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks. It was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. The flight from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport was hijacked by five Islamic extremists less than 35 minutes into the flight. The hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.

The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37am EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the hijackers, and 125 in the building were killed. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed and firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze. The damaged sections of the Pentagon were rebuilt in 2002, with occupants moving back into the completed areas on August 15, 2002.

The 184 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park consists of 184 benches, one for each of the victims, arranged according to the year of birth, ranging from 1930 (age 71) to 1998 (age 3). Flight 77’s cuts directly through the park. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

United Airlines Flight 175

“… United Airlines Flight 175 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport, in California. On the morning of September 11, 2001, the flight was hijacked by five al-Qaeda-associated Islamist terrorists, and flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11 attacks. Approximately thirty minutes into the flight, the hijackers forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer, allowing lead hijacker and trained pilot Marwan al-Shehhi to take over the controls. The aircraft’s transponder was turned off and the aircraft deviated from the assigned flight path for four minutes, before air traffic controllers noticed at 08:51. They made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the cockpit. Several passengers and crew aboard made phone calls from the plane and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.

The Boeing 767 operating as Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 09:03, killing all 65 people aboard, including the hijackers. The Flight 175 hijacking was coordinated with that of American Airlines Flight 11, which had struck the top of the North Tower eighteen minutes earlier. The crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower was the only impact seen live on television around the world as it happened. It was upon the loss of Flight 175 that the world realized that the crashes of both aircraft at the World Trade Center were in fact deliberate. The impact and subsequent fire caused the South Tower to collapse, 56 minutes later, resulting in hundreds of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified remains from Flight 175 victims (see chapter Aftermath, below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175

United Airlines Flight 93

“…United Airlines Flight 93 was a United States domestic passenger flight from Newark International Airport in Newark, NJ to San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, CA that was hijacked on September 11, 2001. Approximately 40 minutes into the flight the hijackers breached the cockpit, overpowered the pilots and took control of the aircraft, diverting it toward Washington, D.C. Several passengers and crew members made telephone calls aboard the flight and learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a result of this knowledge, the passengers decided to mount an assault against the hijackers in an attempt to regain control of the aircraft.

The plane crashed in a field in Stonycreek Township, near Shanksville, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, about 80 miles (130 km) southeast of Pittsburgh and 150 miles (240 km) northwest of Washington, D.C., killing all on board including the four hijackers. Many witnessed the impact from the ground and news agencies began reporting on the event within an hour. The plane fragmented upon impact, leaving a crater, and some debris was blown miles from the crash site. The remains of everyone on board the aircraft were later identified. Subsequent analysis of the flight recorders revealed how the actions taken by the passengers prevented the aircraft from reaching the hijackers’ intended target, thought to be either the White House or the United States Capitol. A permanent memorial is planned for construction on the crash site, with dedication scheduled for 2011, though it has been the subject of criticism.

Of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11 (the others were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 175), United Airlines Flight 93 was the only one that failed to reach its intended target. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

 

Al-Qaeda

“…Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KYE-də or /ælˈkeɪdə/ al-KAY-də; Arabic: القاعدة‎, al-qāʿidah, “the base”), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa’ida, is a militant Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[6] and late 1989.[7] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army[8] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is considered a terrorist organization.

Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, most notably the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001. The U.S. government responded by launching the War on Terror.

Characteristic techniques include suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets.[9] Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous “al-Qaeda-linked” individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan, but not taken any pledge.[10]

Al-Qaeda ideologues envision a complete break from the foreign influences in Muslim countries, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam,[11] which is largely embodied in the U.S.-Israel alliance, and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is religiously justified in jihad. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Jihad

“…Jihad (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning “struggle.” Jihad appears frequently in the Qur’an and common usage as the idiomatic expression “striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)“.[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[3] In Twelver Shi’a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.

A wide range of opinions exist about the exact meaning of jihad. Muslims use the word in a religious context to refer to three types of struggles: an internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve the Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war.[4] The differences of opinion are the result of different interpretation of the two most important sources in Islam, the Qur’an and the ahadith (singular: hadith). For example, the prominent orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that, in the Qur’an and the ahadith jihad implies warfare in the large majority of cases.[5] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that “one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct”.[6]

In western societies the term jihad is often translated as “holy war”.[7] Muslim authors tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[8] In technical literature, the term “holy war” is often used to describe jihad.[9] However, scholars of Islamic studies often stress that both words are not synonymous.[10]

…”

“…Sunni view of Jihad

Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one’s soul (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting (this is similar to the shiite view of jihad as well).

Gibril Haddad has analyzed the basis for the belief that internal jihad is the “greater jihad”, Jihad al-akbar. Haddad identifies the primary historical basis for this belief in a pair of similarly worded hadith, in which Mohammed is reported to have told warriors returning home that they had returned from the lesser jihad of struggle against non-Muslims to a greater jihad of struggle against lust. Although Haddad notes that the authenticity of both hadeeth is questionable, he nevertheless concludes that the underlying principle of superiority internal jihad does have a reliable basis in the Qur’an and other writings.[31][32]

In contrast, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya did believe that “internal Jihad” is important[33] but he suggests those hadith as weak which consider “Jihad of the heart/soul” to be more important than “Jihad by the sword”.[34] Contemporary Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam has argued the hadith is not just weak but “is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.”[35]

Muslim jurists explained there are four kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[36]

  • Jihad of the heart (jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combatting the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. This type of Jihad was regarded as the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).
  • Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is concerned with speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue.
  • Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action.
  • Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the greater jihad, the fight against desires, with the lesser jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state.[37]

…”

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

The Saudi 911 hijackers were Wahhabi

“…Most Americans continue to be puzzled by the Saudis. 15 or the 19 hijackers on Sept 11th were Saudia Arabian. Not Taliban. Not Libyan. Not Palestinian. Why? They don’t like our military presence in the country, our culture, our policies, in general they just don’t like us and want us dead. What’s more they’re increasingly unhappy with the ruling Al Saud Family, who a decade ago cut a deal with us for military protection. The Key to understanding the vicious attack on America is in understanding “Wahhabism.”

Wahhabi Clerics control education in Saudi Arabia. They teach that all who do not believe exactly as they do are “enemies.” They also teach holy war against enemies (Die fighting a jihad and you die a martyr with special rewards afterlife.)

The Saudi hijackers were Wahhabi. When they crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon they believed they were doing a holy act and ensuring martyrdom. This twisted thinking is a perversion of Islam. The Wahhabis use their wealth to export their twisted message. They target the poor and illiterate with the promise of an education, only to teach religious INTOLERANCE, the oppression of women and terrorist warfare.

The Al Saud Family is worried about civil war. It has been Osama Bin Ladens main objective has ben to terrorize the U.S. out of Saudia Arabia and then incite the Saudi people to help him seize the kingdom and it’s vast oil reserves.

The Al Saud Family regularly pays off the Wahhabi Clerics and Islamic charities simply to avoid civil war. A lot of the money has been funnelled to Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda network.

If Islamic terrorists were to seize control of Saudia Arabia and its 260 billion barrels of crude oil reserves, they would be ten times more powerful than Iran or Iraq.

While Kuwait is the only Arab Democracy in the Middle East, the Islamic Fundamentalist Party is the fastest growing party there. The Middle East is a ticking time bomb. Islamic extremism is rapidly growing. …”

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/saudi-wahabbi-religion.html

List of countries by Muslim population

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

Mapping the Global Muslim Population

A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population

ANALYSIS October 7, 2009

Executve Summary

“..A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 1.57 billion Muslims of all ages living in the world today, representing 23% of an estimated 2009 world population of 6.8 billion.

While Muslims are found on all five inhabited continents, more than 60% of the global Muslim population is in Asia and about 20% is in the Middle East and North Africa. However, the Middle East-North Africa region has the highest percentage of Muslim-majority countries. Indeed, more than half of the 20 countries and territories1 in that region have populations that are approximately 95% Muslim or greater.

More than 300 million Muslims, or one-fifth of the world’s Muslim population, live in countries where Islam is not the majority religion. These minority Muslim populations are often quite large. India, for example, has the third-largest population of Muslims worldwide. China has more Muslims than Syria, while Russia is home to more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined.

Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims. Most Shias (between 68% and 80%) live in just four countries: Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq.

These are some of the key findings of Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The report offers the most up-to-date and fully sourced estimates of the size and distribution of the worldwide Muslim population, including sectarian identity.

Previously published estimates of the size of the global Muslim population have ranged widely, from 1 billion to 1.8 billion.2 But these commonly quoted estimates often have appeared without citations to specific sources or explanations of how the figures were generated.

The Pew Forum report is based on the best available data for 232 countries and territories. Pew Forum researchers, in consultation with nearly 50 demographers and social scientists at universities and research centers around the world, acquired and analyzed about 1,500 sources, including census reports, demographic studies and general population surveys, to arrive at these figures – the largest project of its kind to date. (See Methodology for more detail.)

The Pew Forum’s estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world’s Muslim population.3 Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate. …”

http://pewforum.org/Mapping-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx

How Many Muslims in the United States?

by Daniel Pipes
April 22, 2003

updated Nov 22, 2009

“…Islam is widely touted as “the fastest growing religion in the United States,” so how does one explain that The World Almanac and Book of Facts has these figures for Muslims in the United States:

  • 1997 edition (p. 644) says 5.1 million
  • 2003 edition (p. 635) says 2.8 million

No, the population did not actually decrease; to understand this reduction in the estimate, see my October 2001 analysis, “How Many U.S. Muslims?” In it, I report on two recent surveys, by the American Religious Identification Survey 2001 and Tom Smith of the University of Chicago, which found the number of U.S. Muslims to be under two million. So, it appears that the almanac’s editors stopped accepting the overblown Islamist estimates as accurate and instead relied on scholarly and reliable work. A good round estimate is that Muslims make up just under 1 percent of the U.S. population. (April 22, 2003) …”

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/04/how-many-muslims-in-the-united-states

Organisation of the Islamic Conference

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

 

THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM

“…Islam
Islam (a word that literally means “surrender to the will of God”) arose in Arabia with what Muslims believe are a series of revelations to the Prophet Mohammed from the one and only God, the God of Abraham and of Jesus. These revelations, conveyed by the angel Gabriel, are recorded in the Qur’an. Muslims believe that these revelations, given to the greatest and last of a chain of prophets stretching from Abraham through Jesus, complete God’s message to humanity. The Hadith, which recount Mohammed’s sayings and deeds as recorded by his contemporaries, are another fundamental source. A third key element is the Sharia, the code of law derived from the Qur’an and the Hadith.

Islam is divided into two main branches, Sunni and Shia. Soon after the Prophet’s death, the question of choosing a new leader, or caliph, for the Muslim community, or Ummah, arose. Initially, his successors could be drawn from the Prophet’s contemporaries, but with time, this was no longer possible. Those who became the Shia held that any leader of the Ummah must be a direct descendant of the Prophet; those who became the Sunni argued that lineal descent was not required if the candidate met other standards of faith and knowledge. After bloody struggles, the Sunni became (and remain) the majority sect. (The Shia are dominant in Iran.) The Caliphate-the institutionalized leadership of the Ummah-thus was a Sunni institution that continued until 1924, first under Arab and eventually under Ottoman Turkish control.

Many Muslims look back at the century after the revelations to the Prophet Mohammed as a golden age. Its memory is strongest among the Arabs. What happened then-the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even into Europe within less than a century-seemed, and seems, miraculous.6 Nostalgia for Islam’s past glory remains a powerful force.

Islam is both a faith and a code of conduct for all aspects of life. For many Muslims, a good government would be one guided by the moral principles of their faith. This does not necessarily translate into a desire for clerical rule and the abolition of a secular state. It does mean that some Muslims tend to be uncomfortable with distinctions between religion and state, though Muslim rulers throughout history have readily separated the two.

To extremists, however, such divisions, as well as the existence of parliaments and legislation, only prove these rulers to be false Muslims usurping God’s authority over all aspects of life. Periodically, the Islamic world has seen surges of what, for want of a better term, is often labeled “fundamentalism.”7 Denouncing waywardness among the faithful, some clerics have appealed for a return to observance of the literal teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith. One scholar from the fourteenth century from whom Bin Ladin selectively quotes, Ibn Taimiyyah, condemned both corrupt rulers and the clerics who failed to criticize them. He urged Muslims to read the Qur’an and the Hadith for themselves, not to depend solely on learned interpreters like himself but to hold one another to account for the quality of their observance.8

The extreme Islamist version of history blames the decline from Islam’s golden age on the rulers and people who turned away from the true path of their religion, thereby leaving Islam vulnerable to encroaching foreign powers eager to steal their land, wealth, and even their souls.

Bin Ladin’s Worldview
Despite his claims to universal leadership, Bin Ladin offers an extreme view of Islamic history designed to appeal mainly to Arabs and Sunnis. He draws on fundamentalists who blame the eventual destruction of the Caliphate on leaders who abandoned the pure path of religious devotion.9 He repeatedly calls on his followers to embrace martyrdom since “the walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets.”10 For those yearning for a lost sense of order in an older, more tranquil world, he offers his “Caliphate” as an imagined alternative to today’s uncertainty. For others, he offers simplistic conspiracies to explain their world.

Bin Ladin also relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood11 executed in 1966 on charges of attempting to overthrow the government, Qutb mixed Islamic scholarship with a very superficial acquaintance with Western history and thought. Sent by the Egyptian government to study in the United States in the late 1940s, Qutb returned with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western society possesses “nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.”12

Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan.All Muslims-as he defined them-therefore must take up arms in this fight.Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.13

Bin Ladin shares Qutb’s stark view, permitting him and his followers to rationalize even unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled faith. Many Americans have wondered, “Why do ‘they’ hate us?” Some also ask, “What can we do to stop these attacks?”

Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as “your agents.” Bin Ladin has stated flatly, “Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.”14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers.

Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda’s answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: “It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.” If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda’s leaders said “desires death more than you desire life.”15 …”

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

Mosque of Mischief, Mundus Volt Decipi

“…We keep hearing that the only issue at hand is whether building the Ground Zero Mosque is legal or not. We keep hearing that opposing this mosque is un-American and makes us just like the enemy. In short, those who oppose a mosque are bigots.

This is, of course, a tactic employed by the left to narrow the debate, a tactic used to deny the very existence of Jihad. It’s also a way of smearing those who want to know more about the ideology of Imam Rauf and to find out if this mosque is terror-financed.

Questions: If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is revealed as an Islamist supremacist and the financing as dirty money, would it make a difference to those who support the building of the mosque?

If it makes no difference that Rauf is an Islamist who wants America to become Sharia compliant, then you are enabling Salafist Islam, an ideology that is, at the core, dedicated to the eradication of Western civilization.

If it does make a difference then we should exercise due diligence and investigate Rauf and the already murky financing behind the mosque? …”

http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2010/08/mosque_of_misch.php

Sharia

“…Sharia (شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃaˈriːʕa], “way” or “path”) is the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences among themselves as to exactly what it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well.

Muslims believe all Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh, or “jurisprudence,” interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur’an and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists replace qiyas analogy with ‘aql, or “reason”. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia. While the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader or political leader. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting.

Introduction (or reintroduction) of Sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries. Some Muslim minorities in Asia (e.g. India) have attained institutional recognition of Sharia to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of success (e.g. Britain’s Muslim Arbitration Tribunal). Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[2][3][4][5] violence,[6][7][8][9][10][11] and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War) [12][13][14][15].

…”

 

Pearl Harbor

“…Pearl Harbor, or Pu’uloa, is a lagoon harbor on the island of Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi, west of Honolulu. Much of the harbor and surrounding lands is a United States Navy deep-water naval base. It is also the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan on December 7, 1941, brought the United States into World War II. …”

“…Aircraft and midget submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy began an attack on the U.S. The Americans had deciphered Japan’s code earlier and knew about a planned attack before it actually occurred. However, due to difficulty in deciphering intercepted messages, the Americans failed to discover Japan’s target location before the attack occurred.[6] Under the command of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the attack was devastating in loss of life and damage to the U.S. fleet. At 06:05 on December 7, the six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 183 planes composed mainly of dive bombers, horizontal bombers and fighters.[7] The Japanese hit American ships and military installations at 07:51. The first wave attacked military airfields of Ford Island. At 08:30, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, mostly torpedo bombers, attacked the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The battleship Arizona was hit with an armor piercing bomb which penetrated the forward ammunition compartment, blowing the ship apart and sinking it within seconds. Overall, nine ships of the U.S. fleet were sunk and 21 ships were severely damaged. Three of the 21 would be irreparable. The overall death toll reached 2,350, including 68 civilians, and 1,178 injured. Of the military personnel lost at Pearl Harbor, 1,177 were from the Arizona. The first shots fired were from the destroyer Ward on a midget submarine that surfaced outside of Pearl Harbor; Ward sank the midget sub at approximately 06:55, about an hour before the assault on Pearl Harbor. Japan would lose 29 out of the 350 planes they attacked with. …”

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

Pearl Harbor

“…In Pearl Harbor were 96 vessels, the bulk of the United States Pacific Fleet. Eight battleships of the Fleet were there, but the aircraft carriers were all at sea. The Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC) was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Army forces in Hawaii, including the 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions, were under the command of Lt. Gen. Walter C. Short, Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department. On the several airfields were a total of about 390 Navy and Army planes of all types, of which less than 300 were available for combat or observation purposes.

The Japanese air attack on Pearl Harbor and on the airfields of Oahu began at 0755 on December 7, 1941 and ended shortly before 1000. Quickly recovering from the initial shock of surprise, the Americans fought back vigorously with antiaircraft fire. Devastation of the airfields was so quick and thorough that only a few American planes were able to participate in the counterattack. The Japanese were successful in accomplishing their principal mission, which was to cripple the Pacific Fleet. They sunk three battleships, caused another to capsize, and severely damaged the other four.

All together the Japanese sank or severely damaged 18 ships, including the 8 battleships, three light cruisers, and three destroyers. On the airfields the Japanese destroyed 161 American planes (Army 74, Navy 87) and seriously damaged 102 (Army 71, Navy 31).

The Navy and Marine Corps suffered a total of 2,896 casualties of which 2,117 were deaths (Navy 2,008, Marines 109) and 779 wounded (Navy 710, Marines 69). The Army (as of midnight, 10 December) lost 228 killed or died of wounds, 113 seriously wounded and 346 slightly wounded. In addition, at least 57 civilians were killed and nearly as many seriously injured.

The Japanese lost 29 planes over Oahu, one large submarine (on 10 December), and all five of the midget submarines. Their personnel losses (according to Japanese sources) were 55 airmen, nine crewmen on the midget submarines, and an unknown number on the large submarines. The Japanese carrier task force sailed away undetected and unscathed.

On December 8, 1941, within less than an hour after a stirring, six-minute address by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress voted, with only one member dissenting, that a state of war existed between the United States and Japan, and empowered the President to wage war with all the resources of the country.

Four days after Pearl Harbor, December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Congress, this time without a dissenting vote, immediately recognized the existence of a state of war with Germany and Italy, and also rescinded an article of the Selective Service Act prohibiting the use of American armed forces beyond the Western Hemisphere. …”

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Pearl-Harbor/

Wahhabi

“…Wahhabi (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya‎ الوهابية) or Wahhabism is a conservative Sunni Islamic sect based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th century scholar from what is today known as Saudi Arabia, who advocated to purge Islam of what he considered innovations in Islam. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.[1] It is often referred to as a “sect”[1] or “branch”[2] of Islam, though both its supporters and its opponents[3] reject such designations. It has developed considerable influence in the Muslim world through the funding of mosques, schools and other means from Persian Gulf oil wealth.[4]

The primary doctrine of Wahhabi is Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God.[5] Ibn Abdul Wahhab was influenced by the writings of Ibn Taymiyya and questioned medieval interpretations of Islam, claiming to rely on the Qur’an and the Hadith.[5] He preached against a “perceived moral decline and political weakness” in the Arabian Peninsula and condemned idolatry, the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation.[5]

The term “Wahhabi” (Wahhābīya) was first used by opponents of ibn Abdul Wahhab.[2] It is considered derogatory by the people it is used to describe, who prefer to be called “unitarians” (Muwahiddun).[6]

The terms “Wahhabi”, “Salafi” (and also sometimes Ahle Hadith) are often used interchangeably, but Wahhabi has also been called “a particular orientation within Salafism”, [2] an orientation some consider ultra-conservative. [7][8] …”

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

DAY OF INFAMY 2001

 

Ground Zero mosque modeled after notorious 9/11 mosque?

 

Founder of hijackers’ D.C. worship center partners with N.Y. imam pushing shariah

“…The New York imam behind the Ground Zero mosque has struck a partnership with the founder of the so-called 9/11 mosque in the Washington suburbs that gave aid and comfort to some of the 9/11 hijackers, WND has learned.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf counts the lead trustee of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center among partners in his Cordoba Initiative, which features a 13-story mosque and a “cultural center” for his project to bring shariah, or Islamic law, to America.

Families of 9/11 victims oppose construction of the proposed site so close to Ground Zero.

Jamal Barzinji, one of the founders of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, also founded Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., which is run by the pro-jihad Brotherhood. The mosque has been tied to numerous terrorism plots, including the 9/11 attacks.

The dots are finally being connected! Find out what Islam has planned for you: Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

In December 2008, the Brotherhood’s U.S. think tank — the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT – hosted Rauf. During their meeting, IIIT’s leadership, including Barzinji, “pledged cooperation and support” for Rauf’s project, according to this screenshot of the description of the event from IIIT’s scrubbed Web archives.

Rauf’s partner Barzinji is a founder and director of IIIT, which is under active federal investigation for funneling funds to Palestinian terrorists. Its Herndon, Va., offices were raided by federal agents after 9/11.

The U.S. government has accused Barzinji of being “closely associated” with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. He has not been charged with a crime, however. …”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=194617

SAUDI ARABIA’S EXPORT OF RADICAL ISLAM

by Adrian Morgan

http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/fox_imm.htm

Ground Zero mosque debate swirls in world capitals

The Ground Zero mosque debate is garnering increased attention in the world press, with Muslims coming down on both sides of the proposed center two blocks from the former World Trade Center.

“…Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat on Sunday.

“Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery,” Mr. Al-Rashed wrote. He added that “the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!”

Shakib Bin-Makhlouf, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, told Arab News that he supports the proposed Islamic center and appreciated President Obama coming out in support of it. “Islam has nothing to do with the events that happened on 9/11,” Mr. Bin-Makhlouf told the agency. “Unfortunately, the media has contributed in tying terrorism to Islam. When a non-Muslim commits an act of terror, no one refers to his religion.”

As the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” has turned into a political debating ground, it’s also become a barometer for the world to assess how America treats Muslims. One British blogger suggested that the mosque is evidence that America is experiencing the same “Islamitization” allegedly happening in Europe, where many Europeans worry that Muslims are gaining undue influence. In a pointed summary of the project, Qatar-based newspaper Al Jazeera writes:

Critics say it would be inappropriate to build a mosque on the “hallowed ground” of Ground Zero.

Yet there is already a mosque two blocks north of the Cordoba House site, Masjid Manhattan, which has been open since 1970.

As several commentators have pointed out, there is also a strip club – New York Dolls – just one block north of the mosque site. No one has complained about that profaning of the sacred. …”

 

Timeline: Osama bin Laden, over the years

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.timeline/index.html

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Steve Coll– The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century; Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 –Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson, Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Will Release Explosive Information of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf,The Promoter of The Ground Zero Mosque, Where He Supports Extreme Radical Religious Fanatics Including Moslem Brotherhood and Saudi Wahhabi Islam!

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Understanding Jihad–Videos

Posted on September 9, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, government spending, history, Homes, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Religion, Security, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

 

Time For A New ‘Team B’ to Understand Jihad

 

Background Articles and Videos

Frank Gaffney & Wafa Sultan: Shariah and the Ground Zero Mosque

Frank Gaffney with Glenn Beck: Shariah & Stealth Jihad

Is ‘Islam’ at war with us?

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos

CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Bailing Out Bomber Banks–Shariah Islamic Banking and Financial Jihad in the United States

Posted on November 11, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Economics, Education, Investments, Life, Links, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

 
~Vladimir Ilyich Lenin 

 

“…The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.”  …”

~Osama Bin Laden Jihad

 

Shariah Financing-Wall Street-selling our souls for $$$

 

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld Explains Sharia Banking (Arutz 7 Video)

 

Frank Gaffney, Coalition to Stop Shariah

 

Wafa Sultan on Sharia

 

I was listening to a local talk radio show when I heard Joy Brighton explaining Shariah Islamic banking and its connection to  jihad terrorism to the show’s host.

At first I thought this was a joke as did the talk show host.

I could not believe what I was hearing.

Watch and listen to the above videos. 

As far as I am concerned any US financial institution that is being bailed out by the Federal government should be banned from offering Shariah Islamic banking and finance products and services.

In my opionion no US financial institution operating either in the US or abroad should be permitted to offer these products and services as well.

Why?

The products and services are financing jihid  terrorism against US citizens.

 

Obsession – Islamic Jihad coming to America 

 

Just say no to Shariah Islamic Banking coming to America in a neighborhood near you.

Call your own financial institution and bank and ask if they offer Shariah products and services.

Then decide where you are going to keep your money and investments.

 

Background Articles and Videos

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 

“…The Treasury Department has announced it will teach “Islamic finance” to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress and other parts of the executive branch today in Washington, D.C. – but critics say it is opening a door to American funding of Islamic extremism.

‘Islamic Finance 101’

According to its announcement, the “Islamic Finance 101” forum is “designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry.”

The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University’s Islamic Finance Project to coordinate the event. The department says it expects about 100 people will attend the seminar. …”

 

“…Tenets of Shariah

In his essay, “Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism,” Alex Alexiev outlined the following tenets of Shariah taken from “The Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law”:

  • A woman is eligible for only half of the inheritance of a man
  • A virgin may be married against her will by her father or grandfather
  • A woman may not leave the house without her husband’s permission
  • A Muslim man may marry four women, including Christians and Jews; a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim
  • Beating an insubordinate wife is permissible
  • Female sexual mutilation is obligatory
  • Adultery [or the perception of adultery] is punished by death by stoning
  • Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
  • Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
  • Lying to infidels in time of jihad is permissible  …”

 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80003 

 

First ever U.S Islamic Banking Subsidiary

 

Islamic Banking and Finance-Sharjah Islamic Bank

 

Jihad with money

 

Shariah Banking Explained

 

Islamic banking

Islamic banking refers to a system of banking or banking activity that is consistent with the principles of Islamic law (Sharia) and its practical application through the development of Islamic economics. Sharia prohibits the payment of fees for the renting of money (Interest|Usury|Riba) for specific terms, as well as investing in businesses that provide goods or services considered contrary to its principles (Haraam). While these principles were used as the basis for a flourishing economy in earlier times, it is only in the late 20th century that a number of Islamic banks were formed to apply these principles to private or semi-private commercial institutions within the Muslim community. …”

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

 

Jihad Economics and Islamic Banking

“…Shari’a finance is a new weapon in the arsenal of what might be termed fifth-generation warfare (5GW).2 The perpetrators include both states and organizations, advancing a global totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion. The end goal is to impose that ideology worldwide, making the Islamic “nation,” or ummah, supreme.3 

Shari’a is the crucial source and ultimate authority dictating the actions of practicing individuals and radical Muslim states and movements alike. Failing to understand the political use of shari’a hampers the U.S. ability to mount effective policies, plans, and strategies to successfully counter this fast-growing totalitarian threat. …”
 
“…Shari’a is the set of Islamic laws established by Muslim jurists, based on the Qur’an and deeds of the prophet Muhammad, as recorded beginning more than 1,200 years ago. Its end goal, for all time, is establishing a world ruled entirely by Islam and the harsh shari’a laws. These laws govern every aspect of daily life and prohibit individual, political, and religious freedoms.  

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200807271543/homeland-security/jihad-economics-and-islamic-banking.html

 

Fatāwā of Osama bin Laden

“…Osama bin Laden wrote what is referred to as a fatwa in August 1996[1], and was one of several signatories of another and shorter fatwa in February 1998[2]. Both documents appeared initially in the Arabic-language London newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi[1][2]. At the time, bin Laden was not a wanted man in any country except his native Saudi Arabia, and was not yet known as the leader of the international terrorist organisation al-Qaeda. Therefore these fatwas, or fatawa, received relatively little attention until after the August 1998 United States embassy bombings, for which bin Laden is indicted[3]. The indictment mentions the first fatwa, and claims that Khalid al-Fawwaz, of bin Laden’s Advice and Reformation Committee in London, participated in its communication to the press.

Bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa is entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”. This document is sometimes called the Ladenese epistle, a term derived from bin Laden’s surname. It is a long piece, and complains of American activities in numerous countries. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat%C4%81w%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden

 

Osama Bin Laden’s Jihad

and text of Fatwahs and Declaration of War

“…On that basis, and in compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.”  …”

http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
U.S. Treasury teaches ‘Islamic Finance 101’
Advisers, scholars to promote controversial Shariah funding

 

Jihad Comes to Wall Street
“Sharia finance” does exactly what it promises, financing the spread of sharia — and terror.

By Alex Alexiev

“…The legitimization of sharia in the West and its gradual imposition in Muslim communities and beyond is a key objective of sharia finance, and there is no doubt it has already made huge strides. Indeed, the precedent of legal sharia-finance transactions was used by the hapless archbishop of Canterbury to buttress his argument that introducing sharia in the United Kingdom was unavoidable.

Given the reality of malignant Islamism now spreading into our own capital markets to the loud cheers of the same Wall Street masters of the universe who gave us sub-prime mortgage securitization, Americans have a right to ask: Where are the U.S. Treasury Department and the SEC, whose job it is to protect our markets? Given the outright fraudulent misrepresentation of the potential liabilities of sharia-finance funds under existing regulations, they should get involved soon.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjBhMTM5MTlmN2YzNzE0MmFkOTg2OGYxNWM2MGNiNTQ=&w=MQ==

 

 

Banks move into Islamic finance
 
By irene Hall
 
Sharm al-Shikh
 
The dramatic growth of Islamic banking and finance appeared to have been confirmed during the recent World Economic Forum in Sharm al-Sheikh in Egypt.

 

One of Germany’s biggest banks, Deutsche Bank, announced a joint venture with Ithmaar Bank of Bahrain and Abraaj Capital of Dubai to launch a $2bn (£1bn) Sharia-compliant financial fund.
The banks say the fund is designed to boost education initiatives and investment in media and energy companies, and infrastructure in the Middle East.

 

More and more conventional international banks, such as Citibank, HSBC and UBS, are converting some of their services to interest-free Islamic finance models.

 

Estimates of the value of Islamic banking internationally range from $200bn to $500bn.
Some financial analysts are concerned that the increase in Islamic banking opens Western financial institutions to influence informed by a conservative Islamic agenda. …”

 

 

 

 

 

Sharia LAW Creeping into the US- Wake up America!!!!

 

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1143491

 

Financial Jihad 

Rising oil prices and the West’s dependency on Middle East oil, combined with willful blindness and political correctness, provide a surge of petrodollars, making financial and economic jihad so much easier to carry out. Moreover, according to shari’a, Muslims hold all property in trust for Allah.4 Therefore, under the shari’a, all current and historic Muslim acquisitions everywhere, including the United States

, belong to the ummah, in trust for Allah.

 

Funding the jihad, i.e., financial jihad, or Al Jihad bi-al-Mal, is mandated by many verses in the Qur’an, such as chapter 61, verses 10.11: “you . . . should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives,” and chapter 49, verse 15: “The [true] believers are only those who . . . strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah.” This has been reiterated throughout Islamic history and in recent times. “Financial Jihad [is] . . . more important . . . than self-sacrificing,” according to Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) spiritual leader Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi.6

 

Qatar-based Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most prominent Sunni scholars in the world today, reiterated the legal justification for “financial jihad [Al-Jihad bi-al-Mal]” in a lecture he gave on 4 May 2002 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to him, “collecting money for the mujahideen (jihad fighters . . . ) was not a donation or a gift but a duty necessitated by the sacrifices they made for the Muslim nation.” 7 …”

 

 

FINANCIAL JIHAD:

WHAT AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW

By Christopher Holton

Vice President

Center for Security Policy

“….Fighting Back Against Shariah

 

 

“…The Center for Security Policy is taking the national lead in exposing the risks of

Shariah-Compliant Finance, with briefings to agency officials at Treasury, SEC,

Congress, Dept. of Homeland Security and various state District Attorney offices.

The Center has also built a national coalition of groups to begin educating the average

investor about the risks to their investments from financial jihad.

These efforts include an authoritative legal memorandum written on the subject by legal

scholar and experienced litigator David Yerushalmi, who is also leading an intelligence

investigation into the promotion of Shariah in U.S. mosques in his “Mapping Shariah”

program.

The Center has established a web site devoted to stopping Shariah at

http://www.stopshariahnow.org. …”

http://www.stopshariahnow.org/f/FINANCIAL_JIHAD.pdf 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 7 so far )


Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...