Documents entered into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing trial here in Dallas are being posted by the US court to the Web. The Counterterrorism Blog highlights one document entered into evidence yesterday -- the transcript of a 1993 meeting of alleged Hamas backers in Philadelphia, in which they decided how to respond to the Oslo peace agreement. They talked about how the need to present a false front for the sake of derailing the peace deal. Said Holy Land CEO Shukri Abu Baker:
"War is deception. ...Deceive, camouflage. Pretend that you’re leaving while you’re walking that way. Deceive your enemy."
The government also entered into evidence this week a videotape in which defendant Mufid Abdulqader -- who was at the time a city engineer in Dallas, working inside city hall on city infrastructure -- enacted a fundraising skit for Hamas. You can see the video here, though it's not subtitled. Here's the transcript. It ends with him "shooting" an actor representing a Jew.
Meanwhile, according to today's Dallas Morning News:
A 1991 document the government entered into evidence this week from the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas' parent organization, outlines its goals in America as "a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
You want to know how important the Muslim Brotherhood's activities in America are, and how widespread they are throughout American Muslim institutions? Start here.
Who is more at fault? The deceiver, or those who wish to be deceived?
UPDATE: Douglas Farah from the Counterterrorism Blog has been digging through the papers released at trial. He links to taped evidence of the Muslim Brotherhood's intention to penetrate the United States and to conceal its activities with front groups. Farah:
But it is clear we have a secret organization, with its own internal bylaws, security and military structure that views the United States as a vital field for penetration. At the same time a premium is placed on escaping the notice of the authorities through front groups.Not a surprise, but nice to see it in their own words and writing.
Check out all these documents in full here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Daniel, in all fairness to Rod, it is conceivably possible to nuke an Arab capital without killing any Muslims. I'll leave the mechanics as an exercise for the reader.
Ahem yourself, Daniel. Anyone who endorses a retaliatory act of war against a Muslim state is ipso facto advocating killing Muslims. Anyway, I've said just the other day, and on other occasions, that I wish I hadn't gone as far as I did then, because it was wrong. Bill H.'s remarks made it sound like I advocate killing Muslims because they are Muslims. Which is asinine, and I've never said such a thing.
My point in bringing this stuff up is these groups -- ISNA, CAIR, et alia -- affect to be honest, patriotic Americans who want nothing more than to join the American dream. Believe me, I've dealt face to face with them, and I see how they operate with the news media. The evidence coming out in this trial should cause all Americans to think twice about the bona fides of these organizations, and to quit giving them a free pass. You cannot take what they say at face value. Ask hard questions. At the Dallas Central Mosque three summers ago, they made a book by Sayyid Qutb that called for violent Islamic revolution worldwide part of a reading program for teenage Muslims. If we were in war against Nazi Germany, and a Lutheran church in town were encouraging its youth to read "Mein Kampf," you'd better believe you'd be concerned about it.
I am not alleging that laws have been broken, or are being broken, by these folks. I have no knowledge of that. What I am saying is that Muslim organizations deserve a lot more critical scrutiny than they've been receiving by the news media and others. Brave Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Stephen Schwartz and Sheikh Hisham Kabbani have been saying the same thing for years, but nobody listens. I ask you again: what is it going to take to make people wake up? That MB document was a smoking gun.
In short, liberals aren't wetting their pants because this time the bad guys are really, really, REALLY evil. And maybe we think a Democrat run administration would be less concerned with Janet Jackson's breast and more worried about the security of our infrastructure?
Umm, isn't that what we pay Alberto Gonzales for? Assuming Al is not too busy with other things, shouldn't the damn FBI be at work here? And please don't even try to tell me they are shaking in their boots in fear of the ACLU or some other nonsense.
On one hand we are told King George has everything under control, the ter-ists are on the run, and to replace him or his party with weak willed Democrats would be disaster.
On the other hand you are by all appearances telling me the Justice Department is full of clueless dolts.
Which is it?
Why do you assume people aren't awake, just because they don't agree with you? It's possible to be well aware of the evidence and have read the MB document and not agree with your parade of horribles or take your point of view. I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to accept. People who begin at a different starting point than you do can end up at a different interpretation or viewpoint.
Sorry I couldn't jump back in yesterday, but I had to leave work early yesterday.
I prefer the positive definition of liberalism that is advanced by Paul Berman in his book, "Terror and Liberalism."
That is, "Liberalism wanted to carve life up into different slices and keep each of those slices in its proper spot. The churches, from their place in private life, would be free to bestow blessings and curses. But they would not be able to enforce their blessings and curses by calling out the police.
The state, by contrast, would be free to call out the police, but would not have the power to bestow blessings and curses. The idea of maintaining a separation between material powers and spiritual powers was wonderfully practical, but also more than practical...
It held out a vision of freedom not just for one group of people and their favorite doctrine, but for everyone..." ("Terror and Liberalism," page 80)
That's the kind of liberal I would be proud to be called. But I feel that many of the liberals I know are not waking up to the Islamist threat to precisely this kind of freedom.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.